Woman killed, 12 year old son shot multiple times for laughing

[marym625]

In California, a 44 year old woman, Denise Berry, was driving with her 12 year old son and saw something that made them laugh. A car driving down the street with one of the passengers sticking his feet out the window. Now, the 12 year old is in the hospital with multiple gun shot wounds and his mother is dead. The poor child blames himself.

And it happened right in front of the police.

The boy told police Berry noticed one of the Cadillac passengers had his feet hanging out the window, laughed and remarked: "Look at that, isn't that funny?"

Then she drove on — and the men followed.

Berry drove up to police officer and told him they were being pursued, so the cop told her to park in front of him.

But that did not save her.

After Berry pulled her Mercedes-Benz over around 12:30 p.m., the men caught up with her. One jumped out of the car and opened fire with two handguns.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ga-mom-killed-stranger-laughing-cops-article-1.2172131

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-0404-hawthorne-shooting-20150404-story.html

I hate guns. Hate. Absolutely hate. I know I am a minority when it comes to wanting them all removed from society but I am not going to pretend anymore that I just want better restrictions. Except for the few hunting rifles actually used for food, I wish they would all disappear.

I am not so stupid or naive to believe that will ever happen. But damn I hate them.

[hack89]

1. I hate gangs and criminals

that is what needs to be removed from society.

[marym625]

2. I agree

But there have to be reform, help with other choices, better education, etc to stop gangs from seemingly to be the only choice.

Regardless of criminals and gangs, if the god damned handguns weren't so easily obtained, criminals and gangs couldn't have them to use

[hack89]

3. And what about us legal gun owners?

why are we expected to give up a civil liberty as the first step? I have owned guns for decades and never committed a crime. Disarm the criminals. Leave me alone.

[marym625]

4. As I said,

I am not stupid enough or naive enough to believe that will ever happen. But I hate guns. I am glad you are a law abiding gun owner. I am sure you do all the right things. I believe you are not one of the idiots there are out there that leave a loaded weapon around, with safety off, that children can reach and kill themselves or others. But it seems as time goes by, there are fewer and fewer of people like you.

I hate guns and wish they didn't exist. I am not coming for your gun or anyone else's. But I won't pretend I wish they didn't exist.

[krispos42]

362. "seems like" and reality are two different things.

The reality is that our homicide rate continues to drift downwards, as does the rate of accidental gun-related deaths.

But the corporate media does as well a job with those facts as it does with with anything in the past 20 years... Poorly.

(Especially if it ends in "-gate&quot .

The penetration of the internet, echo-chamber news delivery, and the social networking systems provide neither perspective nor distance to stories.

[marym625]

363. Not in Chicago

Murder and gun violence is up. All other crimes are down but those two are up here

[krispos42]

367. Chicago is less than 1% of the nation

Variation by region is to be expected. And Illinois in general and Chicago in particular had very strict gun laws.

A variety of social problems are not solved, and in fact barely affected, by hardware-based solutions.

[stone space]

5. She died for your freedumz. (nt)

[hack89]

6. No. She died due to the illegal acts of a criminal.

But you know that.

[weissmam]

294. If you adhere to the second amendment

right to bear arms as part of a well organized militia , or if you really adhere then all you can have is single shot muskets

[GGJohn]

295. Well, if you want to go down that route,

then you really would want to adhere to the 1A of that time, so, disconnect from the internet, turn off your computer, get rid of all your pens and go buy a quill and ink set, use only hand cranked presses, etc.

[sasquuatch55]

323. That...

is LAME!

[GGJohn]

347. Why? eom.

[stone space]

327. You no doubt think the 1st Amendment applies to your 3D-Printer. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

334. Umm....

Perhaps you could point to any post by anyone who ever tried to make this ridiculous claim? Or, you could just stop making stuff up. Your choice.

[sasquuatch55]

324. Absolutely!

The writers where very pin point on this.

[hack89]

343. There is no militia requirement in my state constitution

so I am good to go.

And of course Heller has my back on the Federal level.

[blueridge3210]

7. No.

She died because a violent sociopath decided to commit murder. The fact that I may or may not own a firearm and that that right is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment has no bearing on the actions of this violent sociopath.

[AlbertCat]

16. hat right is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment

Y'mean the one where you can own a flintlock if you're in a well regulated militia?

[GGJohn]

20. Sorry dude, but that boat sailed a long time ago.

If you want to stick to what was available when the 2A was written, then I guess we have to get rid of the internet, go back to hand operated presses to conform to what the 1A was back then.

[Beaverhausen]

31. You are aware the "a well-regulated militia"

Is actually part of the second amendment, right?

[GGJohn]

35. You are aware of the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

is also part of the second amendment, right?

[George II]

286. ONLY part, and the way I read it "the people" must be a member of a militia, right?

[GGJohn]

288. The way I read it, along with the SCOTUS's Heller decision, of which all 9 justices agreed that the

2A is an individual right not connected to militia membership.

[blueridge3210]

36. "Well Regulated Militia"

is a subordinate clause that gives one reason for guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not limit it to that one purpose. As another poster has stated regarding this issue; if I say "I'm out of milk, I'm going to the store", that does not limit my purchase to just milk, nor does it limit the store to only selling milk.

[a2liberal]

50. This.

It absolutely amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people forget basic grammar and common sense when it comes to the Second Amendment and wanting to change what it means.

[OldRedneck]

206. Perhaps, oh wise grammarian, you can explain:

Why "a well-regulated militia" is the only qualifying clause in the amendment?

[blueridge3210]

209. I already did.

It gives A reason for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms; doesn't limit it to that one reason.

[blueridge3210]

21. Yup.

Just like the 1st amendment only applies to quill pens and newspapers published using the presses available at the time. Burning the flag is not "speech" and is therefore illegal. An on, and on, and on.

[GGJohn]

26. He really didn't think it through did he? eom.

[blueridge3210]

29. Seems to be a recurring issue with some

amongst the pro-control side. Along with the "guilt by association" fallacy that tries to hold everyone responsible for the actions of a criminal few. As a legal gun owner, I'm no more responsible for the actions of a criminal who uses a firearm that I am for the damage caused by someone who is DUI because I may occasionally consume an alcoholic beverage.

[Puha Ekapi]

30. The framers surely...

....didn't envision high capacity, full auto writing instruments

[Jenoch]

75. You're correct, they could not have envisioned

electronic communications. Did you have a point you wished to make?

[BeyondGeography]

116. That line would work better if there were mass electronic communication killings

[Jenoch]

131. You've have to be kidding.

Do you know how many criminals/killers use cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices to aid them in their criminal activities?

[ncjustice80]

136. Never heard of a school massacre by cell phone.

[Jenoch]

319. Technology allows for cyber bullying

sometimes with death as a reeult. Should Facebook be banned?

[S_B_Jackson]

341. Never heard of a bomb being detonated by a cell phone?

My, how curious.

[BeyondGeography]

140. That would be a good line if the primary purpose of all those items

was to kill people.

2-0. Your turn.

[Jenoch]

318. I have a handful of guns.

None of them has a primary purpose of killing people.

Mentioning flintlocks and the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous thinking. It is a valid comoarison about communications technology and the 1st Amendment.

[BeyondGeography]

325. Only if a cellphone is remotely as likely to kill someone as a gun

The comparison is absurd.

[Jenoch]

352. If we're talking about comparing technology and

guns, then it is absurd to claim that guns are sold over the internet. It has been illegal to do so since 1968, a year before the internet was invented.

[clffrdjk]

356. Just what is the likely hood of a gun being involved in a death?

Them maybe you could list some other everyday objects that would fall into the range.

[BeyondGeography]

358. Could Adam Lanza have done Sandy Hook with a toaster?

[clffrdjk]

360. I am sorry but what does that have to do with your statement on the likely hood of a gun being

Involved in a death?
Are you now running away from that statement?

[stone space]

329. And Pillows! Don't forget people smothered with pillows!

Do you know how many criminals/killers use cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices to aid them in their criminal activities?

[Jenoch]

353. People do get smothered with pillows.

Should there be a back ground check on pillows (and knives for that matter.)

[itsrobert]

88. Yup, that's why they made ways to amend and repeal laws

The framers certainly didn't think every law or amendment they devised was going to be set in stone like the ten commandments

[Jenoch]

320. You are correct.

The 2nd Amendment coukd be eliminated by the various states and gunszwould still be legal for citizens to own. Some states might pass draconian laws, other states have RKBA in their state constitutions.

[stone space]

331. The whole notion of a highly capable full auto printing press printing a gun was not even...

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

...in their world view back then.

The US Constitution was written back in the days when printers printed words, not guns.

Some here in this group want to apply 1st Amendment to the use of printing devices that are quite different from anything that the writers of that Constitution ever envisioned, unless one or two were science fiction writers at the time.

[blueridge3210]

337. Then, I'm sure

you can point out or link to posts that make that statement?

[stone space]

332. Today's modern "printing presses" are increasingly capable of printing guns...

...as well as words.

Just like the 1st amendment only applies to quill pens and newspapers published using the presses available at the time.

[blueridge3210]

333. Umm.....no......

"3D Printing" is a euphemism that refers to a type of lathe that works off of a computer program instead of a physical template. It's not a "printing press" in any way and the 1st Amendment does not apply in any way. Try again.

[stone space]

336. Printing technology is changing.

Laws need to adapt to those changes.

[blueridge3210]

338. Yes, printing technology is changing.

But, "3D Printing" is not "printing with regards to the First amendment. It's simply a manufacturing technology.

[DonP]

24. Yeah, the one right after your right to own only a hand operated printing press

Try to catch up. You've seemed to have slept through a few major court decisions.

But, if you want to try and restrict one right to 18th century standards you have to include the others too.

So better get off the internet now, it's not covered by the 1st in your world.

[stone space]

328. Does the 1st Amendment apply to 3D printers?

Yeah, the one right after your right to own only a hand operated printing press

Do you have a 1st Amendment right to print out an AR-15 of your 3D printer?

Because, technology, right?

[DonP]

348. Actually I've made my four so far

The last two I machined in my home shop on a drill press from 80% finished lowers and parts kits. No serial numbers needed and they shoot great, thank you very much.

But a 3D printer is fine too, i just prefer forged aluminum. Yay, technology huh?

Hard to put that genie back in the bottle, not that you'd ever actually do anything but whine about it online though.

[raven mad]

146. blueridge - I want to K&R what you just wrote.

I have only a shotgun, and its most frequent use is scaring moose out of my garden.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. By your rules, you're responsible for every DUI death because you don't reinstate Prohibition.

[GGJohn]

17. You say you teach calculus but you don't know how to spell?

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

[awoke_in_2003]

216. I think the mis-spelling was intentional. nt

[GGJohn]

223. Yeah, I know it was,

but I'm just yanking his chain.

[awoke_in_2003]

228. oops. nt

[blueridge3210]

229. I'm certain it was.

The irony, or humor if you will, is that the poster who intentionally misspells "Gunz" constantly throws out their alleged status as a calculus instructor as an "appeal to authority". As in, "I'm a Calculus teacher; I'm a really smart person who should be listened to when it comes to policy on firearms".

I'm reminded of the "really smart people" who were successfully scammed by Bernie Madoff because they couldn't get past their own egos regarding their intelligence and figure out that someone who was promising a 10% return per year regardless of the economy was full of it. I remember reading somewhere that the really high level scam artists deliberately targeted high performers for this very reason; for some reason their ego overrides their common sense when it comes to issues outside their area of expertise.

[awoke_in_2003]

244. Oh, ok...

I try to avoid the gungeon and religion, so I miss out on some things.

[20score]

8. How the fuck do you do that? Disarm the criminals?

There's one reason to keep those types of guns. People like them. That's it. I do too, but I still hate dishonest, childish bullshit. No one knows, or will ever know who will do something like this.

Every time I hear childish bullshit like this, it turns me a little more towards gun control.

[hack89]

14. Easier than disarming legal gun owners. Nt

[tblue]

39. Thank you. It's damn selfish too, imho.

Tired of incessant self-centered greed being used as an excuse for this insanity.Self-gratification doesn't justify endangering innocent people day after day after day. ENOUGH! The answer is so simple, even if implementing it is not.

[gejohnston]

43. appeal to emotion much?

this is an issue where reason, not emotion should be used. Not only is appeal to emotion a logical fallacy, it doesn't convince people.

[NaturalHigh]

61. My two firearms will never endanger anyone...

unless they break into my house. If that happens, my right to defend my family trumps the utopian fantasy where firearms don't exist.

[Eleanors38]

107. "Greed?" The deceased skid mark didn't give a shit about $. He wanted to kill...

and 10k dollars on his dashboard wasn't gonna stop him. So much for economic determinism.

[benEzra]

127. "No one knows, or will ever know who will do something like this."

Actually, prior conviction for a violent crime less than murder is a very good predictor of who will murder. Likewise, a clean record is a pretty good predictor of who won't.

I'm pretty sure the murderer in this case had quite a long criminal record, and I guarantee he didn't have a California carry license.

[safeinOhio]

11. You and I don't have to give them up.

Just make sure there are background checks on all sales. Have every handgun registered and safely stored. None of this would in any way disarm me or you.
Wouldn't solve every problem but would be a start.

[hack89]

25. I do not support registration- UBCs and storage laws are ok. Nt

[blueridge3210]

32. I wonder if the people suporting mandatory registration of firearms

would support mandatory registration of all printing presses, fax machines, xerographic machines, etc.?

[tblue]

41. If they caused deaths every day, they probably would.

This is not a joke. Not everyone places their favorite gizmos above human life.

[BrotherIvan]

72. The part that's missing from the argument

We aren't talking about useful objects, we are talking about deadly weapons.

[GGJohn]

73. Those "deadly weapons"? They're also useful

objects, self defense, putting food on one's table, sporting events, or just plain having fun plinking.

[safeinOhio]

83. All that can be done by legal owners

of registered hand guns.

[GGJohn]

93. I never said they couldn't, however,

I am fundamentally opposed to registration just because I don't trust the govt. to keep it's word that it wouldn't lead to mis-use of such a list.

[Dragonfli]

60. I do not wish to argue either way, but I am curious as to why you do not

support registration. It does not appear any more unreasonable to me than registering a vehicle. I am asking because your reason may be a very good one that I am simply unaware of.

[hack89]

65. I shouldn't have to go in a government database to exercise a fundamental right

as for car registration, you don't need to register one just to own it, just to drive it on public roads - car registration is a taxation scheme, not a public safety one. I had a unregistered car sit in my driveway for a year and broke no laws.

I have no problem with more stringent licensing requirement to carry a handgun in public - concealed carry licenses should be rigorous.

[Dragonfli]

76. Don't you think that registration would help stop those that misuse their fundamental right?

I get the fear of government databases, I myself am not fond of the fact that every private communication of mine is being collected and stored by the NSA for possible use if they get a warrant to read/listen to them all at a later date, yet I really believe you are not a threat and therefore would not be adversely affected by a practice meant to help stop those that are not following the rules or acting responsibly with their firearms.

As I understand it, unregistered guns are often used for illegal activity, why not rethink your position? Registering your firearms might even be helpful to you if any are stolen and later recovered.

[hack89]

90. How do you eliminate unregistered guns?

there are hundreds of millions of them.

[Dragonfli]

97. Many of them can be eliminated by simply registering them, you could personally eliminate

some of them yourself by registering the ones you own, how is that not clear? Older weapons that are not registered could be registered by responsible owners, new ones could be registered at point of sale. As to old unregistered weapons owned by irresponsible people, they will eventually rust and since the bulk of gun owners are responsible (as I am told) there would actually be very few of those (unless less of the owners are responsible regarding them than I have been led to believe).

I still do not see what you find complicated about this. If the good guys would agree to get on board with gun registration and allow fair legislation to accomplish it, a great many weapons that are not registered already could become registered and all new ones would be when purchased.

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

I am not suggesting eliminating anything, I am merely suggesting that registering weapons may be helpful in the pursuit of stopping people that misuse the weapons technology available to citizens that have a right to own them in this country.

[hack89]

98. But since criminals are the ones killing people

and they won't register their guns, not sure what the point is. How many guns are in criminal hands? How does creating a lucrative market for unregistered guns reduce gun violence?

Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides - registration will not stop that. Registration won't stop mass killings either- Adam Lanza's guns were registered.

[Dragonfli]

106. I see you are too stubborn to even consider constructive ways to help with the problem

I won't bother you again, you do not appear to care much for working within the system to help prevent misuse of weapons technology in this country.

I really don't get it, law enforcement believes weapons registration is helpful in the pursuit of stopping criminals who misuse the rights available in this country, you feel you know better how to do their work than they do, maybe you have a point, cops are mostly assholes these days and they may actually know far less about law enforcement than you.

As far as suicide goes, well, that is a bit of a red herring which I believe you are fully aware of, so it would be pointless to even go there.

I see no point in further communication between us as I was curious as to why you were against registering weapons and you have answered honestly. The fact that I see your reasons to be against such registration as not very good ones is irrelevant to further communication yet relevant to the probability that further discussion would only devolve.

See ya around the boards Hack89, and thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[hack89]

110. I support nearly every gun control proposal out there with two exceptions

an AWB and registration. You and I agree on many more things than we disagree about.

I don't look to the police to protect my civil rights. History is full of examples of how they abuse constitutional rights to make use"safer". You must have loved the Patriot Act.

[Dragonfli]

117. I hate the patriot act, perhaps we agree on even more than you think. /nt

[hack89]

118. Then don't use "because the police think it is a good thing" as an argument to me.

by nature I don't instinctively respect authority.

[Dragonfli]

125. Understandable considering the way our country has been devolving into

Something resembling a police state. In light of abuses recently by authority across the board I was too rash in characterizing your concerns about being placed in a database keeping track of firearms as "paranoia". I apologize for that.

I just was not thinking at the time about whether or not authorities could be trusted to use information as intended, there is actually far more evidence to suggest that any and all information they gather these days would be misused.

You have given me more to think about.

[GGJohn]

120. My reasoning is that I just don't trust the govt to keep it's word.

There are too many examples of the govt saying one thing and doing the opposite, plus, registration would accomplish nothing in regards to criminals acquiring firearms.

[clffrdjk]

359. Registration leads to confiscation every single time.

[Dragonfli]

364. Well, I distrust the government as much or more as the next guy but

Do you have any proof of such a claim?

[clffrdjk]

370. California, Connecticut, New York...

It's a pretty easy claim to disprove, care to try?

[Dragonfli]

371. It's not on me to disprove your unsubstantiated claim

try again, this time follow the rules, make a claim, back it up.

[clffrdjk]

372. I provided three examples of places that confiscated firearms following registration.

A simple google search is all that you would have to do. I will not spend all night trying to prove a negative when it would only take you a few min to disprove.

[Dragonfli]

373. Sorry Son you got that backwards, try again

[clffrdjk]

374. How so?

My claim is that B always follows A, I gave three examples. All you have to do is find one A without a B why is that so hard?

[Dragonfli]

375. You gave me nothing, that's the problem

A claim is nothing without a link, or something. I have no idea what you are talking about without information. I have never heard of what you claim until now, just put up the info or I will think you are full of shit. It's quite simple, you said registration leads to gun grabbing, never heard of such a thing, are you just making shit up, or can you back it up?

[clffrdjk]

376. Bullshit

But here you go, some background info.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/11/how-government-officials-sealed-the-doom

[Dragonfli]

377. Was that really so hard? In the future just do what you just did in the first post with the claim.

That being said, it appears guns were not confiscated due to the registration so much as not following the rules in the state, my dad hunts in NYS, none of his shotguns carry more shells than allowed, he follows the law and has all his guns to this day.

At the same time, I can see how people that do not want to follow the hunting rules would wish to hide their shotguns, just don't let them get caught in the field with them while hunting, the same result would occur, I assure you.

[clffrdjk]

378. So your claim is there was no confiscation.

Can you prove that? Goose, gander.

[gejohnston]

379. it wasn't a hunting rule

it was confiscation of a previously legal firearm. Hunting regulations have nothing to do with gun control laws. For example, in Wyoming I could own all the .223 rifles, regardless of platform, and 30 round magazines I want. Can't use either for hunting deer, pronghorn, or any other large game. Must be at least .23 caliber and five rounds if you have a detachable box magazine, regardless of action type. Oh, the casing has to be at least two inches long, so leave the .44 mag home. I don't know about NYS, but .22lr is mostly for small game. Florida is not as strict, but then the deer will barely fill a freezer there.

A tube magazine like that, or the .30-30 I used, is exempt. Your dad likely hunts water fowl, which is federal hunting regulation based on a treaty with Canada.

[clffrdjk]

380. So my original point still stands and is waiting for you to disprove, registration leads to

Confiscation every single time.

[Dragonfli]

382. Not really, the link you provided clearly stated they were all weapons that were already illegal

The laws broken by the gun owners were in place prior to registration.

Again, I can see how if one owns weapons that are against state laws one would wish to keep them secret.

I guess it is also the fault of a TV show that reveals men going after children, and the producers are responsible for them being charged with trying to have sex with minors, rather than the men trying to hook up with children (at least by your reasoning.)

Bad Shows picking on innocent pedophiles that should have been allowed to hide what they were doing.


In NY, your shotgun can only hold so many shells, most hunters here know this and don't try to break the law just for shits and giggles. Bring your weapons into compliance or don't complain if you get caught breaking the law.

[gejohnston]

384. Um no,

the rifle was previously legal, which is why it was registered. Your dad puts plugs in his shotgun while hunting to conform with a federal law. That only applies while hunting water fowl anywhere in the US and Canada. Plugs are not made for that rifle. The plugs your dad uses are easily removed.

So you admit the point behind registering currently legal guns is to make them illegal later and easy to find once they are. Really, what is the point of banning a gun that is never used in crime?

[clffrdjk]

386. You couldn't be more wrong

Please point out how the safe act was passed before registration.
Please point out just how California managed to legally register what you call already illegal guns for years. I await your links anything less is you admitting that you are full of it.

[GGJohn]

100. How would you stop unregistered weapons from coming across the border?

We can't even stop the drugs or illegal immigrants, so how do you eliminate the smuggling of guns?

And I personally oppose registration, for a couple of reasons, the govt. has no business knowing what firearms I own, and, I don't trust the govt to keep it's word that such a list won't be misused.

[safeinOhio]

86. So, you don't vote because

you'd be in a government database?

I agree we shouldn't have to register handguns, but to be real, it is now needed.

[hack89]

94. If they recorded my actual ballot you might have a point

Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2015, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Registration will not prevent suicides. They will not stop mass shootings- Adam Lanza's rifle was registered. It is settled law that felons cannot be required to register their guns due to 5th Admendment concerns. So I don't see how registration is some magic bullet that will save lives.

It would be an extremely expensive endeavor with minimal return. You would save more lives spending the money on an anti-sucide campaign and improved mental health care.

[safeinOhio]

104. Not a manic bullet

But, get caught with a handgun that is not registered to you, you give up the gun, go to jail and spend a ton of money. One way of putting the hurt on those that are not suppose to have a gun with little to no cost for legal owners.

[hack89]

108. Seems like a minimal return for a massive investment

surely those billions spent somewhere else would save many more lives.

[safeinOhio]

112. Cost a lot less than a CCW

I don't see the cost of permits slowing them down.

[hack89]

113. I am talking about the cost to government

to set up, populate and administer 50 individual systems. For one thing, you assume every state would be willing to pay for it.

[safeinOhio]

128. OK, so if

I could make it so it cost nothing, you'd be good with it?

[hack89]

135. No. I do not support registration under any circumstances.

There are plenty of other measures that would be more effective and less intrusive to privacy.

[safeinOhio]

141. I own an easy to conceal handgun

and I have no problem with privacy if I have to register it. I find comfort in knowing that my registered handgun can be traced if lost or stolen. I do have a problem with unlawful individuals that can easily get a handgun from an individual on the street with no questions asked. If I were to commit a felony, or anyone else that owns a handgun were to do the same, I have no problem with the police knowing about that gun and coming to take it away as it would then become illegal.

but that's just me.

[hack89]

142. Then informally register your gun with the government

I don't give you permission to surrender my rights to assuage your conscience.

[safeinOhio]

144. I'll not feel bad or feel I surrendered my rights and

best of all I won't be mad or angry when the time comes.

I purchased a handgun at a garage sale and called the sheriffs office to have them run the serial # to make sure it was legal. Does that count?

The largest list of gun owners in this country is the NRA and that list is for sale. I don't belong.

[hack89]

145. I am sure you are an upstanding citizen

just don't go thinking you are the standard by which all upstanding citizens are judged. That type of arrogance is best suited for Bansalot.

[gejohnston]

351. no. Basically they ran the SN through

NCIC to see if it was reported stolen. If it were, you would be out of the gun and your money because the gun would be returned to the person that reported it stolen.

[safeinOhio]

357. As it should be registration would solve those types

Problems for a buyer,only regestered guns could be sold.

[gejohnston]

365. Before I support it,

I have yet to see a compelling, logical fallacy free, argument in favor of it and pass the cost benefit analysis. It hasn't, which is why Canada and New Zealand discarded registration for most guns while having zero effect either way. I prefer to see the money spent on things that have been proven to work gun related or not. I don't believe in regulation for the sake of regulation. That always seemed illiberal to me. No, NFA had nothing to do with ending the mob or the short lived roving bandits. The mob got theirs from fake security companies, and Dillinger and his ilk stole them from national guard and police armories.
http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2014/04/07/dillinger-tommy-gun-public-enemy-number/7423037/
BTW, IIRC, you called out Ted Nugent's racism a few times, and rightfully so. What about Bloomberg's racism?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161797
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/08/is_bloomberg_racist_sexist_or_clueless.html

[Eleanors38]

109. You support registration, you tell us why. Asking "why not?" is not a good argument.

[Dragonfli]

115. Actually I was curious as to why others were not, it was not an attempt to argue

It was an attempt to understand. I had not really formed an opinion on whether I supported it or not (not being one that really wants to own such weapons myself).

Having asked, I now understand why the person I asked does not support it, I think the reasons supplied were rather silly and unsubstantial, now, having learned the answer to the question I asked, I have decided registration is a good idea because law enforcement believes it is helpful in stopping criminals and the only objections to registration I heard thus far were based on paranoia about being in a database and a belief that if all weapons everywhere could not magically be registered than none of them should be.

Not a good counter to something that would not restrict lawful ownership and yet would be helpful to law enforcement in solving violent crimes.

My curiosity has been satisfied, I do realize I only asked one person and there may be very good reasons to resist helping law enforcement in solving violent crimes and if I will likely ask again in the future or more likely simply read threads discussing the issue to learn more.

To be honest however, I will not likely think very much about the issue until I become curious again, and at the moment I am already bored with the subject and the responses all appear to be redundant variations on the paranoia and the can't achieve 100% registration so give up arguments and I am off to more interesting subjects

[Eleanors38]

126. Understood. My comment went to argumentative form; advance a position, support position.

I am not a fan of registration, but do support background checks. The biggest reason why registration won't come about is that most of its advocates place the policy in the context of "a good beginning" "a good start," etc. Second Amendment advocates are aware of these truisms about American politics: Prohibition doesn't let up until it is Thoroughly beaten down, and Prohibition is a proxy culture war against large segments of society.

Incidentally, a Pew study was released (and posted here yesterday) which showed that the % of African Americans who thought gun ownership was a positive went from 29% to 53%. In 2 yrs. This is startling evidence of shifting ground for this issue.

[ncjustice80]

158. They re afraid the gubmint will come fer their gunz one day...

[GGJohn]

166. You truly don't have a damn clue do you?

We're not afraid of that at all, the "gubmint" won't ever come for our firearms, I just don't believe the "gubmint", (your spelling, not mine) has any fucking business knowing what firearms I own.

Why is it you controllers can't spell guns correctly?
It's guns, not gunz.

[ncjustice80]

178. So you ll register your car and give them the details of your finances,

But dont want them to know how many deadly weapons you possess? Sounds paranoid to me...

[GGJohn]

184. I register my vehicle so I can drive it on the public roads,

but my farm vehicles aren't registered as they don't leave my farm.
And, no, I'm not in the least paranoid, that's your opinion, and like all opinions, they're like behinds, every one has one, some are smellier than others.

I'll state again, it's my belief that the govt has no fucking business knowing what firearms I own and I'm fortunate to live in a state that recognizes that.

[ncjustice80]

326. Your beloef sounds a lot like the stuff tea partiers say...

[GGJohn]

346. My beliefs sound a lot like what millions of Americans say,

Dems, Repubs, Ind., etc.

[Eleanors38]

387. Nah, just any personal info it wants.

[Jerry442]

19. Responsible gun owners could have stood up to the NRA.

But they didn't, at least not in enough numbers to count. That window is closing. Screw 'em. Let's repeal the 2nd amendment and outlaw and confiscate every gun and accessory out there out there that has no legitimate purpose.

On edit: Oh yes, and do whatever is necessary to make sure that gun owners who are negligent face heavy criminal and/or civil penalties.

[GGJohn]

23. That's very bold talk.

Are you going to go door to door and help confiscate said firearms and accessories?
Or are you just another one that would let others with guns do your dirty deed?

[Jerry442]

33. Wouldn't be as dramatic as all that.

For example, you could outlaw high capacity magazines, flash suppressors, silencers, and armor-piercing ammunition. Buying and selling them would be prohibited, with steep criminal penalties. After a cutoff date possession of those items would become illegal, also with steep criminal penalties.

If you want to hide one of those things in your basement, you could probably get away with it indefinitely, but it would be a ticking time bomb down there. Lots of people would get rid of them.

[GGJohn]

37. Armor piercing ammo is already outlawed,

Silencers are already restricted, how would outlawing hi-cap mags and flash suppressors cut down on criminal use of firearms?

Remember what happened in '94?
Want a repeat of that?

[blueridge3210]

38. Are there a lot of crimes being committed

involving weapons equipped with flash suppressors? "Silencers", Hollywood not withstanding, don't make the weapon "quiet" they just drop the decibel level down so that the report is less likely to cause hearing damage. Think the difference between standing next to a Nascar vehicle at full throttle and standing next to a Peterbilt doing the same; both are loud, one noticeably less so. "High Capacity" magazines are regulated to some degree in some states; this will do nothing to affect either the criminal use of firearms or negligent misuse. "Armor Piercing" ammunition is already illegal for handguns; the recent furor over the now withdrawn ATF proposal was over a faulty interpretation of the law regarding center-fire rifle ammunition.

[gejohnston]

46. Laws do not prevent criminal acts

there has never been a gun control law that has ever dropped a crime rate.
armor piercing ammunition have been illegal since the 1960s. Silencers have been tightly controlled since the 1930s (although unregulated in some countries like UK, France, and Norway. Some hunting areas in Norway and Finland require them.) On the other hand, we can make it illegal to possess a 2 liter soda bottle. Oh, they are not used in crimes.
Flash suppressors? What would the point of that be? They are on some rifles that are almost never used in crime other than a couple of headline grabbing mass murders.

Would that stop gangs from getting them? no.

[Jerry442]

54. It must be hard to live on your planet.

Here on Earth, the vast majority of us are aware of laws and the penalties for breaking them and that shapes our behaviors.

[gejohnston]

67. not entirely true

there are two types of laws. Malum prohibitum and malum in se. The former are mostly victim-less crimes like drug laws, laws governing sex acts, the gun laws you propose, things like that. Illegal simply because some politicians decided it should be illegal. The latter means illegal because the act itself is evil even without the State. Those are things like robbery, murder, fraud, embezzlement, etc.

Those who would be deterred from possessing the items you mentioned are almost never going to commit evil acts. Good people simply going bad is very rare.

On the other hand, those who sell cocaine to school kids, kill each other over a couple of bucks and a bag of weed are not going to give a shit about something as trivial as a magazine restriction.
Laws don't prevent me from robbing the store or murdering someone. Neither do gun laws. That is controlled conscience. The law simply deals with those who lack it or don't care.
When social break downs occur, like power outages in New York or nuclear meltdowns in Japan, the media might try to portray it as a mini Mad Max. In reality, it might be a few actors among the vast majority who do not.

I think people are inherently good, you don't seem to.

[hack89]

28. "Just you wait" -the motto of gun control for 20 years.

let me know when the gun control movement is back to where they were in 1994.

[NaturalHigh]

78. The tide is turning, don't you know.

We bad, bad gun owners are going to get ours any day now.

[NaturalHigh]

66. Do you have any idea what it takes...

to repeal a constitutional amendment? Let me give you a clue. You don't have anywhere near the support to even begin the process.

[Eleanors38]

114. Don't be surprised if the NRA picks up you're quote and uses it to its own ends.

There is no power, willingness, grassroots movement, or simple majority which can enact your Prohibition/scheme. There IS a circumstance where your scheme will be attempted: An authoritarian take over by force.

Do you want to go there?

[Matrosov]

130. Because disarming everyone is the most pragmatic method

How do you disarm only the criminals? Do you lock them all up to keep them from getting their hands on firearms?

How do you disarm the 'law abiding gun owners' that turn to crime before they get a chance to commit that crime? Consult a psychic?

No, you disarm everyone, with no exceptions. That doesn't magically remove all firearms from society, as there'll still be the guns floating around on the streets and no doubt some gun owners will keep a hidden cache, but it's a starting point to remove firearms from our society.

[hack89]

138. So how do you convince Americans to give up their guns?

I can understand your hypothetical divorced from present reality, I just can't see how it can happen in today's America.

[ncjustice80]

134. Mr. and Mrs. America- GIVEM UP!

[hack89]

139. No thank you. nt

[sarisataka]

196. Ah, Senator Feinstein

Who also believes in censorship. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026459098

Damn that pesky 1st Amendment. Then again there was no internet at the writing of the BoR...

[Eleanors38]

388. You know Feinstein packed, right? She's an elite; No problem getting a CA CCW.

[angrychair]

192. No one said you were

but, in a lot of cases, many shooters were not criminals until they were. It does not take a lot of research to show that a person with a gun is a lot more likely to use that gun as the "final solution" a lot sooner rather than later.
While I would make every effort to avoid a conflict that involved violence, a person with a gun is a lot less likely to make the same decision. Why? Because they know that, at the end of the day, no matter the number and how physical it might get, they can settle the whole thing with a couple of pulls of the trigger. See a store getting robbed? I call the police. Give as good a description of the person and their car and the direction they left in. A gun owner is a lot more likely to charge in, guns out, to be the hero in a situation that otherwise, statistically, only result in the lose of some property and not in the lose of life. As a store owner, the last thing I want is some jerk coming in, guns blazing, and endangering my employees and customers.
A gun creates a false sense of comfort and security that alters the fear and decision centers of the brain. Carrying a gun makes you stupid. No matter how much you think it doesn't, it does. Road rage is a very clear indicator of this fact. Someone "disrespected" some asshole and he shot up a women and a young child. At the end of day, he would not have happened if it they never had a gun.

[hack89]

201. The poster I was replying to wants all guns removed from society

so yes, someone did say that.

I don't own guns for self protection nor do I carry in public. Nice rant but irrelevant to most gun owners.

[angrychair]

221. Actually that is not what he said

To be specific, he said "Except for the few hunting rifles actually used for food, I wish they would all disappear."
Your comment about "Nice rant but irrelevant to most gun owners." may be true in your specific case but not true in the case of the general public in the United States. In a Pew survey conducted in 2013, 48% of gun owners own a gun for "protection" while only 32% said they owned a gun only for hunting. It is safe to assume that, depending on the laws in each respective state, that a majority of them carry them on their person or in their cars. In Kansas, you can now carry a concealed weapon without a permit of any kind.

[GGJohn]

224. In my state of AZ, it's been constitutional carry since 2010 and so far,

no problems, in Vermont, it's been constitutional carry since the founding of the Republic, been no problem there either, as a matter of fact, 6 states now have constitutional carry and so far, no problems reported.

[hack89]

226. So?

we all know that the liberalization of gun laws will not result in more gun deaths. At least that is what the past 20 years tells us. If gun deaths start suddenly increasing then I might share your concern.

[angrychair]

255. Really?

Over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence. It is expected to top over 33,000 this year, to even eclipse the number of people that die in car accidents. How is it we freak out about what the medical community is doing to prevent the deaths of one or two people from Ebola in the U.S. but 33,000 deaths is not as serious an issue?

People that advocate gun ownership "for protection" ask a lot of me and the general public. By you walking around with a gun, you ask me to trust you. To trust you are "a good guy with a gun". I don't know you and don't know what kind of day you are having or what medicines you are taking or your general psychological well-being. Yet I am to be "ok" with you walking around Target with a device that is created with the express purpose of killing or hurting something. Don't give me the "hammer analogy" or "target practice and hunting" line or Olympic target shooter line. When ANY gun was invented, the inventor didn't go "yep, this is only meant to shoot at targets and hay". A gun was created the express purpose to harm or kill a living creature.

[GGJohn]

256. Ahhh, but what you're leaving out is that 2/3 of those deaths are suicide. eom.

[hack89]

260. Gun deaths have steadily fallen for 20 and will most likely continue to do so

two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The vast majority of the remainder are due to the illegal use of guns by criminals.

Your fixation on the tiny percentage of gun owners who carry in public says more about your personal fears than any rational assessment of the actual dangers.

[gejohnston]

261. not quite true either

20K of those are suicides. Those are about half of the suicides in the US. Would their lives be saved or would they be 20K rope deaths? BTW, what about the other half of the suicides? Are they less dead or tragic? Are they victims of rope violence?

In 2013 there were 12,253 murders. 8,454 were killed with a firearm.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

[gejohnston]

211. a lot of assumptions and a very broad brush

do you read minds?

[angrychair]

242. Not so much

a never used exclusive terms, I said "a lot" or "often" which means not in all cases and not all the time. My opinions are supported by real-life events, surveys and studies. This story, the women in Vegas and gun happy cops are many real-life examples of my very point. Police Officers, the very people who are supposed to be gun experts and the hallmark of gun safety, have been given us many examples, just in the snapshot of the last couple of years, of how wrong gun ownership can go.
I have no issue with guns used exclusively for hunting but my support for gun ownership fades fast after that point. Most arguments for gun ownership "for protection" are specious at best. I've lived a very long time and lived in some pretty ugly places, been robbed and been physically attacked, but in no case did I ever see the need for a gun to injure or kill anyone. A gun "for protection" creates a mindset that I can defend myself with it. That is WHY THEY OWN IT. It exist in their home and on their person to INJURE OR KILL a person. A gun owners mindset is that of one to kill or harm someone if the "need" arises.
The point is that that "need" is often not really there. It is, in MOST cases, self-actualized. There are BILLIONS of people that get by, their entire lives, without the need for a gun to "protect" themselves.

[gejohnston]

249. Your first wrong assumption

yes, a lot and often is a broad brush. Also, I doubt any of these studies or surveys are valid or even peer reviewed.

Police Officers, the very people who are supposed to be gun experts and the hallmark of gun safety, have been given us many examples, just in the snapshot of the last couple of years, of how wrong gun ownership can go.

Actually, cops are not gun experts nor are they hallmarks of gun safety. In fact, they are among the worst. Most of them only know what they have been taught in the police academy, which is basic marksmanship and rules for engagement. They are also not as safe. Hand the average cop a gun that they don't carry, chances are they can't figure it out. In fact, the average 14 year old is better trained and safer after taking a hunter safety course than most NYPD. CCW holders are statistically more law abiding, more responsible, and less likely to kill an innocent by mistake than a cop.

Most arguments for gun ownership "for protection" are specious at best. I've lived a very long time and lived in some pretty ugly places, been robbed and been physically attacked, but in no case did I ever see the need for a gun to injure or kill anyone. A gun "for protection" creates a mindset that I can defend myself with it. That is WHY THEY OWN IT. It exist in their home and on their person to INJURE OR KILL a person. A gun owners mindset is that of one to kill or harm someone if the "need" arises.

Statistically, you would have not been as badly hurt if you had resisted. Either way, that is your choice. You do not have the right to make personal choices for other people. Guns are like abortions, don't like them then don't have one.

The point is that that "need" is often not really there. It is, in MOST cases, self-actualized. There are BILLIONS of people that get by, their entire lives, without the need for a gun to "protect" themselves.

and millions actually do protect themselves with them. What we don't know is how many would be alive if they had one.

[blueridge3210]

257. "Actually, cops are not gun experts"

Yup.

We're about as knowledgeable about firearms as we are the cars we drive 8 - 12 hours a day or the radios we use all day. We know how to use them but, quite often, not a lot else. Our job is to know when to pull the firearm out of the holster and when to squeeze the "bang switch". The other is gravy.

Safety is another issue; I think the "familiarity" causes a sense of false confidence. One reason I like the Glock is the lack of external safety; you cannot rely on a manual safety to protect you from your own inattention.

[angrychair]

267. I have no way to make you see

What you don't want to see. My main point of "The point is that that "need" is often not really there. It is, in MOST cases, self-actualized. There are BILLIONS of people that get by, their entire lives, without the need for a gun to "protect" themselves."
Your only retort was that "millions actually do protect themselves". Where? In the United States? If it is so important and there is such a need to have gun for "protection" why does the vast majority of the OECD nations manage to get by with very limited or no hand-gun ownership?
The American mindset can to often be one of "quickest solution" and not one that looks at the bigger picture. If so many people see the need to own a gun to "protect themselves" than we have bigger problems. When crime is high, it is often tied to economic triggers or access to medical care (psychological care i.e. evaluation and access to mental health care) or illegal drugs (that have both economic and mental and general healthcare components) or sometimes there are other more systemic issues that can often be addressed through public policy. I don't buy the "fear of government" argument either, as at the end of the day, WE are the government. Our government is a reflection of who we are. The government we have today is a reflection of who we are now (big picture, not DU). Short-sighted, ignorant, self-serving and simplistic, sums up the approach to most issues.
Guns for protection are not the solution, they are simply indicative of bigger issues that need a better solution than to shoot it.

[gejohnston]

280. I have to admit that it is kind of hard to see

much past the fake statistics, logical fallacies, emotionalism, and outright bullshit. Try refute anything I said with facts and evidence.

[angrychair]

293. Fake...emotionalism...bullshit

Interesting. Telling.
So, its "fake" or "emotionalism" or "bullshit" that the majority of the OECD nations get by without guns or very low gun ownership for "self defense" or in many cases even for hunting and have low crime and very few deaths from gun violence of any kind?
The obsession for gun ownership is purely American. It is also simply not needed to exist in a civil society. There is no need for the threat of gun violence to be safe in your person or your home. If there is than something is wrong with the society you are living in.
Your tone could be taken as indignant and even angry. While I have maintained a civil tone and have not cussed or impugned your integrity. It is that type of aggressiveness (real or not) that feeds into the stereotype of gun owners as being testosterone-driven glory-whores that see an enemy around every corner or conspiracy nutjobs that think the government is out to get them. The willingness to find or create a "situation" where there does not have to be one. We should be able to have a civil debate on a subject and not resort to making it personal.

[gejohnston]

299. Sort of

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 01:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Interesting. Telling.

So, its "fake" or "emotionalism" or "bullshit" that the majority of the OECD nations get by without guns or very low gun ownership for "self defense" or in many cases even for hunting and have low crime and very few deaths from gun violence of any kind?

Actually, many of them have medium or high gun ownership rates. You are attempting an ad hoc logical fallacy. There really isn't a correlation. I also don't see what OECD membership has to do with anything other than cherry pick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html

The obsession for gun ownership is purely American. It is also simply not needed to exist in a civil society. There is no need for the threat of gun violence to be safe in your person or your home. If there is than something is wrong with the society you are living in.

You need to travel abroad more. Please define "civil society".

Your tone could be taken as indignant and even angry. While I have maintained a civil tone and have not cussed or impugned your integrity. It is that type of aggressiveness (real or not) that feeds into the stereotype of gun owners as being testosterone-driven glory-whores that see an enemy around every corner or conspiracy nutjobs that think the government is out to get them.

Not angry nor indignant. More like perplexed and annoyed. while you have not been uncivil, but certainly not calm or logical. Emotional and incoherent is how I would describe yours.

The willingness to find or create a "situation" where there does not have to be one. We should be able to have a civil debate on a subject and not resort to making it personal.

True, but I only deal with logic, facts, and reason. That is how any kind of policy should be based on. It is an INTP thing, I can't help it.

[angrychair]

321. You've missed the point

in my first statement. The Wikipedia references you make, for the most part, fail to support your conjecture. While the first one gives number of guns by country, in the breakdown it also states "These numbers say nothing about which percentage of the population owns those guns." So we have no idea actually what percentage of the population actually owns the guns referenced. Not to mention, as I detail below, the number of guns owned in a country has nothing to do with the context of that gun ownership i.e. the types of guns, the laws around gun ownership and reasons for gun ownership in those countries.

In the second, on intentional homicide rates by country, with the exception of Canada or South Korea, we are the "worst of the best" in developed countries. The vast majority of the nations with worst homicide rates are third-world nations.

I used OECD nations for reference, It was not cherry picking. OECD nations are advanced, developed, first-world nations that offer a fair comparison to the United States.

Lastly, in your final article, from Deseretnews, the devil is in the details. Of those top 15:
#14 Germany for example, in the article it states, (in Germany)"You can’t buy a firearm simply for personal protection—self-defense doesn’t count as a necessity here." Gun deaths are dramatically less than the United States per 100,000.
#13 Austria, as the most open about gun ownership in Europe, still does not allow handgun ownership under 21 and must have served their obligatory military service and must undergo a psychological evaluation before a license is issued. Gun deaths are dramatically less than the United States per 100,000.
#9 Sweden, that has high gun ownership, it is hunting related and not self-defense. Gun ownership for self-defense is not a valid reason and you are not allowed to conceal carry a gun in Sweden. Gun deaths are dramatically less than the United States per 100,000.
countries 8,7,6,5,4 are third and second-world nations and not a fair comparison (I am not going to compare and contrast gun ownership in the U.S. to Iraq or Saudi Arabia).
#3 is Finland, they are not allowed to be carried in public loaded and self-defense is not a valid reason to get a gun license. Gun deaths are dramatically less than the United States per 100,000.
#2 Switzerland, you also are not allowed to carry or transport a loaded weapon unless you are security or police. Second, the concept of gun ownership has no analogy to the concept here in the United States or gun ownership for self-defense. Gun deaths are dramatically less than the United States per 100,000.

I didn't want to go through every one of them but the above is a good example and gives the general idea. A common theme in all of them is a great deal more regulation than the United States and gun ownership is very rarely related to the concept of self-defense.

[gejohnston]

350. those laws do not prevent anything

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

They have laws against carrying for self defense. If someone is going to do what these guys in the OP did, do you think they are going to care about carry laws? They sure didn't California's did they? Basically, those countries have gun laws similar to Illinois and New Jersey. How is that working out in Chicago and Camden? Can drive to the next state? If gang bangers are going to obey European style carry laws, it only follows that they would obey the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Actually there is no such thing as a "developed" country, or undeveloped. South Korea is a very developed country using what I think are your definitions. I lived there. It also has the same murder rate that it did when it wasn't. Like it or not, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia are developed countries and members of the OECD. They also have stricter gun laws than any of those in Europe and much higher murder rates than ours. Developed is a obsolete and meaningless term.
BTW, these countries had the same low murder rates before they had any laws. Their laws were written as a result of the Red Scare, not street crime or public safety. Prior to that, Europeans often carried small pistols for self defense.

I didn't want to go through every one of them but the above is a good example and gives the general idea. A common theme in all of them is a great deal more regulation than the United States and gun ownership is very rarely related to the concept of self-defense.

which has what to do with criminal gangs killing each other or innocents in LA, Stockton, Oakland, Camden, Chicago, Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, or any of the other worst ten?
If you remove the worst ten, our murder rate would drop to the same level as Germany's.

While you made your point more clear, it still isn't a compelling argument.

[George II]

218. HOW many "legal gun owners" have shot and killed others? Remember......

....George Zimmerman, Curtiss Reeves, Michael Dunn??????????????

[hack89]

220. Out of 60 million legal gun owners? Very very few. Nt

[George II]

232. Remember George Zimmerman, Curtiss Reeves, Michael Dunn!!!

[hack89]

234. Remember basic math!! Nt

[George II]

236. Tell that to the victims.

[hack89]

241. I'm telling you. You are the one who needs the lesson. Nt

[beevul]

238. Not to be confused with calculuz.

[GGJohn]

225. Out of an estimated 60-80 million firearms owners,

it's minuscule.

[George II]

231. If you were one of the victims of the "miscule", you'd still be dead!

[hack89]

235. So zero deaths or all guns banned?

is that your position?

[George II]

237. Yes!

[hack89]

240. Is that your standard for all things that kill people? Or just guns? Nt

[beevul]

243. Such a position is extreme in the extreme....

Such a position is extreme in the extreme.

Probably 90 percent or more of the American voting public would side with the nra rather than that position.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

344. It's a fake position.

You'd never say, "Zero domestic violence, sexual assaults, DUIs and overdoses or alcohol is banned!" Yet, alcohol -- unlike guns -- actually causes changes in behavior that lead to DV, sexual assault, DUIs, etc. Alcohol overdoses alone kill 4300 under-aged drinkers annually. That's the equivalent of 4.3 Sandy Hooks every WEEK.

[passiveporcupine]

245. Because maybe, in this day and age in America

it is safer for the majority if all guns are confiscated. Is it that much of a hardship, to give up your gun, if it means saving lives? Aren't lives more important than your gun?

[hack89]

247. Would I also have to give up alcohol?

or anything else that kills as many people as guns?

[passiveporcupine]

314. Yes, alcohol can kill people too

But that is a separate issue and also needs attention.

Most alcohol deaths probably happen to the drinkers themselves, which is not so true of guns. It's kind of hard to kill someone with a bottle of beer...much easier with a gun. Much easier for a little kid to pick up a gun and accidentally shoot someone than to pick up a bottle of beer and kill someone. Much easier for an irate or fearful neighbor to kill someone with a gun than a bottle of beer.

Knowing that alcohol is a problem in the US doesn't change the fact that gun deaths in the US could be minimized greatly if we didn't have so many guns.

[hack89]

342. There are many ways to reduce gun deaths

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

that don't involve wholesale banning and confiscation. Let's work on those first.

[passiveporcupine]

361. I agree with you, but have you talked to the NRA about this?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

345. "Most alcohol deaths probably happen to the drinkers themselves, which is not so true of guns"

DUI

sexual assault

domestic violence

criminal mischief

[GGJohn]

250. How is it safer for the majority?

99.9% of the firearms in this country will never be used criminally or in a negligent manner.
And what about those of us that hunt? Those of us that need to protect our livestock?
How about the fundamental right to self defense?

[gejohnston]

253. what would you tell the many people who

saved their lives, or at least saved themselves from grave bodily harm with a gun? Don't their lives count? Or do you agree with DC's deputy mayor for public safety that it is better to be a victim and be injured?

[passiveporcupine]

305. just look at statistics

anyone can come up with an argument for guns...but statistically, it is worth it? I think not.

[gejohnston]

312. really?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence

It depends on where you get those statistics from. I prefer not to get them from former Monsanto executives or racist billionaires who pay them to shill for a pet cause.

[passiveporcupine]

315. What are you trying to accuse me of?

I did not quote any sources. But I did look at multiple statistics on google, and once suicide and illness from excessive drinking are eliminated, it still looks like the numbers are higher for accidental gun deaths and homicides than accidental alcohol deaths and homicide (like drunk driving). YMMV

Alcohol needs to be addressed. It is also a huge problem in this country. Lets pass legal marijuana...maybe it will save some lives.

[gejohnston]

317. nothing other than maybe using dubious sources

nothing really. Maybe I kind of assumed you were going to drag out the discredited talking points about x number of times more likely.
the two are not quite the same. For example, homicides (especially gun related ones) are concentrated, not spread out. For example, if the ten worst cities were to disappear or have no murders, our murder rate would be about like Germany's. Even in those cities, drug trade hubs, the problem is concentrated in small pockets of those cities. Also, not all homicides are crimes. Most all, but not all. For example, Wyoming has the highest reported gun ownership rate in the US (Florida's is actually closer to France's). Our murder rate is below the national average, and the use of guns in them is one digit more than half. The last murder in my city was a stabbing 30 years ago. The guy was high on PCP and thought the victim was a deer from outer space, at least that is what his lawyer said.

I would actually have to look at the figures. Violent crime, including murder, is the lowest in my life time. Is drunk driving crashes evenly spread out?

I don't think people will switch from booze to pot, and driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated. I do think ending prohibition would put a dent in gang violence, which would save lives.

As for calling Bloomberg a racist and sexist, I stand by that. Watts and Monsanto? Well, it is on her resume.

[gejohnston]

42. They are not so easily obtained legally in

California. By gangs and and other undesirables, easy. Doesn't matter where you are on this planet, if you can get a bag of weed or coke, you can get a gun often from the same people. That is especially true in Europe. In Australia, biker gangs (like the Hells Angels) make their own machine guns. Handguns are made or smuggled in, not stolen from legal gun owners (police know this because they have never been registered).

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html?oneclick=true
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/

[Moostache]

71. You may be right...

But that is just another valid reason to end the foolish "war on drugs" across the board.

Why is there such a correlation between guns, gangs and drug trafficking?

PROFIT! These are people with little to no socially redeemable skills or talents in most cases. High school dropouts and career criminals, many violent sociopaths are attracted to the drug trade for easy, fast money and the guns and gangs form the "protection rackets" much like the old time mafia. When laws fail, when the intent is outstripped by the reality and consequences of said laws, then rational sentient beings should be capable of changing the laws to better serve their intent rather than doubling down over and over into a bigger hole.

The drug trade has been destroying lives in the USA, Mexico, South America and Asia for decades. It has not slowed drugs at all, in fact, the only thing is has done is amplify the gun proliferation in the USA and around the world, while enriching criminals and forming a permanent employment sector in the economy - the anti-drug police task force.

We would be way better off if we had invested all the blood and treasure of the last 40+ years in treatment for addicts (it IS a disease and it IS treatable) and skills-training or trade schools for under-educated, low skill laborers in inner cities and rural areas. Instead of crack and meth and gangs and cooks, we could have had roads, bridges, air ports and hi-speed rail corridors. We could have had citizens involved in building communities and improving cities instead of destroying them from the inside out.

All of that said...there is no rational reason for gun protection to extend to high capacity magazines and while people argue about armor piercing bullets, the real issue - the inherent ease of obtaining large quantities of ammunition in the first place, goes un-addressed. Why would a private citizen need an armory worth of ammunition? To what end does the "sportsman" or "hunter" require 100's or 1000's of rounds? How bad of a shot are you if you need the ability to shoot up the forest like you were auditioning for a role in the "Predator" series re-boot, where in you would empty clip after clip and hit nothing? What kind of home defense is a gun that needs to be reloaded during the attempt to repel an invader? More to the point, if you are incapable of accuracy, why should you be licensed to maintain a gun in the first place?

If we are going to persist in having wars on drugs and prevalence of guns in society, then we need to start asking the right questions on both sides of the issue. We need to end this experiment in what happens when the immovable object encounters the irresistible force...we know the answer to that already....and this latest dead woman and injured child are the answer.

[blueridge3210]

80. The correlation between drugs and gun violence

is more directly related to the inability to resolve business disputes via the "regular" judicial system. Someone shorts me on my bag of weed; sells me less pure coke than agreed upon or cuts into my "territory" and I cannot go to the local magistrate and swear out a warrant or file an injunction. That leave the "irregular" system where I must "take the law into my own hands".

The quantity of ammunition one possesses has no relationship to how dangerous one is. The "gang-banger" with 6/12/18 rounds in a handgun is more dangerous than the shooting enthusiast who keeps 1k/2k/3k rounds on hand for competition. My BIL shoots competitively; he and his buddies go in together to buy ammo by the pallet load to bring the per shot price down.

I've noted before; current efforts by the pro-control crowd to address criminal use of firearms or negligent misuse of firearms are the functional equivalent of trying to address the issue if DUI by addressing the availability of mag wheels or engine horsepower; both ignore the bad actors at the root of the problem.

[gejohnston]

87. just a few things

But that is just another valid reason to end the foolish "war on drugs" across the board.

agreed.

We would be way better off if we had invested all the blood and treasure of the last 40+ years in treatment for addicts (it IS a disease and it IS treatable) and skills-training or trade schools for under-educated, low skill laborers in inner cities and rural areas. Instead of crack and meth and gangs and cooks, we could have had roads, bridges, air ports and hi-speed rail corridors. We could have had citizens involved in building communities and improving cities instead of destroying them from the inside out.

agreed

All of that said...there is no rational reason for gun protection to extend to high capacity magazines and while people argue about armor piercing bullets, the real issue - the inherent ease of obtaining large quantities of ammunition in the first place, goes un-addressed. Why would a private citizen need an armory worth of ammunition? To what end does the "sportsman" or "hunter" require 100's or 1000's of rounds?

I'm not sure where you are going with this. First, define "high capacity". 100s or 1000s of rounds? Practice. Shooting is not like riding a bicycle. In my high school rifle club each of us went through 100 rounds each week. The average city cop might do that in two years. Someone training for target competitions, much more. Olympics or World Cup? Thousands a week. As for hunting, Wyoming and Florida limits detachable box magazines to five rounds. Your state may vary.

What kind of home defense is a gun that needs to be reloaded during the attempt to repel an invader?

a single shot with two invaders.

More to the point, if you are incapable of accuracy, why should you be licensed to maintain a gun in the first place?

You want accuracy, but no ammo to learn to be accurate.

What does "need" have to do with anything? People don't need to smoke pot. As you kind of admitted, bong owners fuel much of the gang violence in the US. See how that works?

[elehhhhna]

111. what a thoughtful post...

Wow thank you.

[Eleanors38]

119. Sorry, but I have had as many as 500 rounds at my place. Not unusual...

I shoot the deer rifle maybe twice to take 2 deer/yr, but shoot many times that for practice.

I shoot the shotguns maybe 150 times/yr to take dove, squirrel, ducks, but purchase ammo by the case as sales come up.

I shoot my revolver -0- times a yr at B&E thugs, but have a few hundred rounds for practice just in case.

I have an old Winchester .30-30 that I shoot a few times a yr (backup for the deer rifle, but have a couple of boxes of rounds on-hand.

I have a 110-yr-old autoloading rifle with only 25 rounds. They don't make the stuff anymore, but if I see it, I'll buy it.
_____________

My experience is not unique, and real afficianados use up many times what I have in a month.

BTW, a video was posted here a couple yrs ago of a lady shooting at a gang of four home invaders in Detroit. She chased than off, including a HyperPunk™ who immediately CAME BACK for a little more. She let off another flurry and he took off. She didn't reload her AR15. Didn't have to.

[marym625]

147. That's interesting

Scary, but interesting. Thanks for the info

[donnasgirl]

10. Correct

Gangs account for over half of all violent crime in this Country and it needs to be cleaned up.

[Eleanors38]

103. Sounds like a HyperPunk™ was involved: ALL that mattered was getting back...

at someone else for some imagined transgression. There seems to be some segment of vicious criminality which Relishes the opportunity to harm others; given the proximity of the police station, the challenge to this skid mark was just too great. Economic determinism means nothing to this dreg. They have a "higher" calling to the God of Juice.

[ncjustice80]

133. Easier to remove guns than criminals.

[hack89]

137. Not really.

no one here has every advanced a practical method as to how it would be done. Lets start with the premise that gun owners will fight you with ever political and legal means they have. Lets also remember the 2A is not going to disappear.

So explain to me how easy it would be.

[ncjustice80]

160. How did Britain...Australia...Japan do it?

[hack89]

161. Different cultures, different legal systems, no Bill of Rights

Was this a trick question?

[ncjustice80]

176. No.

How did they round up the guns?

[hack89]

177. By passing laws our Constitution forbids.

another trick question?

[ncjustice80]

180. So did the piece of paper jump off a lawmakers desk and go door to door seizing weapons?

was it buy backs, voluntary turn ins, house to house searches? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

[hack89]

183. You tell me. How did they do it?

Is it remotely legal here? I don't really gives a shit - I am happy with the status quo.

[sarisataka]

194. I am not knowledgeable

about Britain but Australia bought the guns through mandatory sales.

Japan's military dictatorship rounded up guns by force in 1607. Civilian ownership has been extremely low ever since. Centuries of military rule has given the Japanese people a culture that submits to authority with little or no question.
Currently Japanese police may search for weapons without warrant upon their 'belief' a person has a gun. Do you want to drop the 4th Amendment as well?

[GGJohn]

170. Britain, Australia, Japan don't have a 2A like the US does.

The 2A is an enumerated right enshrined in our BoR, and if you think that gun owners in this country wouldn't fight tooth and nail with every legal means available, then you are sadly mistaken.

[ncjustice80]

175. Slave owners fought tooth and nail for their "rights" as well.

Glad that didnt work out for them.

[blueridge3210]

182. So, owning firearms = owning slaves?

M'kay. You run with that.

[ncjustice80]

198. Just saying that just becuase something is in the Constitution doesnt make

It right.

[GGJohn]

203. In the case of the 2A, yes it does make it right.

But you're more than free to attempt to change or repeal the 2A, but know this, it takes 2/3 of the Congress to agree to a change or repeal and 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Think you got the votes?
And even if you did manage to change or repeal it, it still wouldn't ban firearms, it would then fall to the states to set their own firearms laws.
But that's all moot, the 2A is here to stay.

[blueridge3210]

204. Slavery was not mentioned in the original Constitution.

It wasn't addressed at all except to determine a state's population for the purposed of apportioning representation in the House. The 13th Amendment formally outlawed slavery.

Whether or not it may be "right" is not the issue; the issue is whether the RKBA is guaranteed by the Constitution. Heller and McDonald have answered that question. The fact is that 99% of lawful firearm owners are not the problem; this suggests that issues regarding criminal use or negligent misuse of firearms are not best addressed by focusing on the hardware but, rather, by focusing on the bad actors.

[GGJohn]

185. Congratulations,

you win the booby prize for the stupidest comparison yet.

[gejohnston]

189. that is the way it has always been

even when Britain had zero gun control laws. You were going for a ad hoc fallacy.

[erpowers]

291. What the Heck Does This Have to do With Gangs?

I read both stories and neither story claimed this was gang related. It appears that this was a case of a group of people doing something some might consider stupid, but not wanting to be laughed at for their actions. Why did you bring up gangs?

[hack89]

292. The shooter would fit into the "and criminals" category. Nt

[Jenoch]

9. A couple of violent criminals are willing

to shoot two people right in front of a cop for no apparent reason. What gun law(s) could have stopped them? (A reply of 'make handguns harder to get' is not a legitimate reply. That's like shutting the barn door after the horse has already run off.)

[marym625]

149. Not if people would stop fighting stricter laws.

It may not have stopped this or something happening tomorrow, but it could stop something next year and all the years after

[20score]

13. Really, the idiots defending guns are turning me more towards gun control.

Every time I see moronic, childish arguments based on what people wish was true, instead of facing reality like an adult, it makes me ill. No different than teabagger b.s., denying global warming,evolution or changing history.

Their way of thinking is causing most of the problems the human race faces.

[marym625]

150. I agree.

I don't understand it. And I never will

Thank you. So nice to see you back!

[gejohnston]

187. this is my explaination

Most tend to be technical types like engineers etc. They are swayed by logic, rational debate, and reason. Facts help too. Some simply didn't grow up in a guns equals evil culture. I happen to be both. They, or we, simply don't find logical fallacies, technical ignorance (arguments from Mel Gibson movies, and misuse of language by propagandists) remotely convincing. Your OP is an example of appeal to emotion. As an INTP, I simply tune them out.
Of course, you blame the gun and people who own guns who had nothing to do with it. What about bong owners? If strict gun laws would make guns magically disappear from criminal hands some day, why hasn't happened to heroin, cocaine, or meth in the past 100 years?
Also, why didn't UK's gun laws prevent this senseless act?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sabrina-moss-three-guilty-kilburn-murder-142924917.html#XNy0hat
Notice it says a machine gun was used. Privately owned machine guns were banned in the UK in 1937. No, they didn't get them from a US gun show either.
How about these?
http://www.ibtimes.com/belgian-arms-dealer-supplied-paris-gunmen-weapons-assault-rifles-used-charlie-hebdo-1783432
Here the term "military style" does not mean "military-style-semiautomatic-assault-weapon" Piers Morgan ranted about. It means can switch from semi to full auto in the case of the AKs and the Skorpin is, well, a machine gun.
Appeal to emotion? I can do that too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/oklahoma-girl-shoots-home-intruder_n_1992381.html

[marym625]

202. First, you are obviously not tuning me out

Second, your argument about the murder by gun on the UK could not be weaker or more ridiculous. When you can show an equal percentage of murder by guns there as we have here, it might be worth it.

Yes I blame gun owners who don't follow simple safety rules and children end up dead. No excuse. Period.

Yes, I blame guns. Because without them, things like what happened in the OP and things like a child grabbing a gun and accidentally killing another child, couldn't happen

As far as your comparison to drugs, I don't even follow that logic, if it could even be considered logic.

Also, as I stated in the OP I am neither stupid enough, nor naive enough, to think that the precious weapons will be taken away. Too much money I'm it.

Finally, it is emotional when people are killed for no fucking reason

[gejohnston]

222. I'm not tuning you out

just the validity of your arguments.

Second, your argument about the murder by gun on the UK could not be weaker or more ridiculous. When you can show an equal percentage of murder by guns there as we have here, it might be worth it.

The number of guns isn't relevant. It is who has them who matters.

Yes I blame gun owners who don't follow simple safety rules and children end up dead. No excuse. Period.

I agree with you on that, but that isn't relevant to your OP, unless you equate the Harvard University shooting team with gangsters. these were professional criminals, sociopaths, most likely carrying out a contract hit. Comparing them to some target shooter or hunter is beyond absurd.

Yes, I blame guns. Because without them, things like what happened in the OP and things like a child grabbing a gun and accidentally killing another child, couldn't happen

Things like the OP would have happened, maybe in a different way. According to the CDC, you are talking about 62 such deaths per year.

As far as your comparison to drugs, I don't even follow that logic, if it could even be considered logic.

Very simple. Gang warfare is fueled by conflicts over market share and protecting those profits from others. Pot smokers are every bit as responsible for most of our and Mexico's gun violence just like beer drinkers were partly responsible for the St Valentines Day Massacre. Before the war on drugs, gangs beat the shit out of each other with tire chains and knives in a park. Back then, they could just buy a gun from one of several mail order catalogs. Pretty simple, actually.

Also, as I stated in the OP I am neither stupid enough, nor naive enough, to think that the precious weapons will be taken away. Too much money I'm it.

Money has nothing to do with it. How would taking my gun way stop something what happened? It won't. The gun can't dis-invented.

Finally, it is emotional when people are killed for no fucking reason

There was a reason, not a good reason, but a reason.

[Omaha Steve]

15. I'm a gun owner

I haven't fired one in probably 35 years. Our grand kids don't have access. When we moved to this sub-division we knew it was low crime. The standard answer is:

A There is only one way in and out of here for several blocks.

B We are so close to the air base, at any time 50% of the homes are uniformed military. Everybody around us is "packing"

C Two cops live in the sub-division that bring their cop cars home and a state trooper that does the same last I knew.

About A. We are at the far dead end. The gauntlet of military and cops are between you and getting out of Dodge.

About B. We have military on the three sides right next to us.


And our dogs bark at every noise. So do the surrounding neighbor's dog's. I don't think we really need the security system, but it came with the house so....

[marym625]

151. I'm thinking you're pretty safe there

Absolutely no doubt in my mind you are one of the responsible gun owners. Unfortunately, that's just not true of many people.

So nice to see you!

[blackspade]

18. Guns will always be around...

The solution is robust gun control.
That means background checks, registration, and education.

Addressing the causes of crime are also a requirement, but too many see this as "to hard" or "costs to much."

Well this story results from both.

[marym625]

152. yep. exactly

Thank you

[Shrike47]

22. We are gun owners. My husband has secured most of the guns to the point where I can't find 'em.

The man who shot these people was blinded by something to the point where he could not understand the wrongness of his acts. Although guns can be very frightening, I am even more concerned about people who lack rudimentary empathy.

[marym625]

153. something has to seriously wrong with the perception

Of the person shooting. Right in front of cops? Unless he was hoping to be gunned down. Just so much wrong with what he did

[phantom power]

27. That's what they mean by "polite society." You better be polite to the ones who are armed.

Or they'll fucking kill you.

[heaven05]

34. got to be wary

these days.....psychopaths, sociopaths and RW open carry nut jobs will shoot you if try to pry their weapon from their cold live fingers.

[marym625]

154. evidently.

Scary thought.
Thank you

[RoccoR5955]

40. The new thing is that when these folks get shot it is an "act of god."

So the new motto for the NRA will be: Guns don't kill people, god does, or Guns don't kill people, it's god's will.

[marym625]

155. Are you serious?

I mean are people actually saying that? Man, I hope not. But I put nothing past the NRA.

[RoccoR5955]

246. I have hear one person saying it....

and a couple on facebook saying it.
so it's only a matter of time before the NRA adopts it.

[marym625]

259. Oh dear dog!

That's unreal!

But, nothing would surprise me with the NRA.

Thank you

[3catwoman3]

44. I am right there with you.

I would melt them all down if I could.

[GGJohn]

47. So let's see if I understand you correctly.

You would melt down my firearms because some POS criminals use guns illegally?
You would deprive me of my fundamental right to self defense?
You would deprive me of my guns that I hunt with to provide my family with food?
All because some criminals mis-use guns?

Amazing!!!!!

[BrotherIvan]

74. Ah yes

The mantra of all those who believe the right to own a dealy weapon supersedes the right to LIVE.

"Your dead kids don't trump my rights!!" --says every gunner on this thread.

[GGJohn]

77. Wrong.

My firearms have never hurt anyone, and BTW, I never said that owning a deadly weapon supersedes the right to live, and NO ONE here has ever said, "Your dead kids don't trump my rights!!"

[BrotherIvan]

85. You're saying it right now

"My guns have never hurt anyone" is the silliest argument I've honestly ever heard. We are talking about gun control as a society. It's part of the social contract that some of our rights are regulated in order to benefit the majority and to make society safe for all of its citizens. But because so many have such a astonishingly narrow view, we are still the number one first world country in gun deaths.

Because we don't want dangerous, irresponsible people or children to get a hold of a gun, we as a society need to decide that there are restrictions on guns (most specifically hand guns). Most 1st world countries have very severe restricitons, and lo and behold, their rate of shootings and gun deaths are exponentially lower.

It's simple logic.

And one of these days, once the NRA can no longer bully politicians, there will be some sort of improvement. Because the number of gun owners is shrinking. And education on the foolishness of owning a gun is getting out there. And people are watching senseless massacres of innocent bystanders all so you can have easy access to a gun. And bit by bit, the course will change. Perhaps not soon or as soon as is necessary to prevent more senseless slaughter. But it WILL change, I have no doubt.

[3catwoman3]

121. In my fantasy utopia, there would be no guns.

Because, as the OP already acknowledged, this will never happen, I feel free to indulge in the fantasy thereof.

[GGJohn]

122. Fair enough,

but what about those of us that hunt for our meat?
Would you allow shotguns and hunting rifles?

[marym625]

156. Thanks.

I wish we could. But alas, they're part of our culture and it won't stop.

[crim son]

45. I hate guns as much as you do

and I would remove them from society. It's 2015, not 1776 and if the government decided to take complete control, weekend warriors and over-armed rednecks could do nothing about it. For those who collect guns or use them for sport, I say, collect pewter and take up basketball. Final answer.

[GGJohn]

48. Over 300 million firearms in this country,

how would you remove them from society?

[NaturalHigh]

64. Cool story.

Fortunately that's never going to happen.

[sarisataka]

68. Recent events have clearly shown

how military force can overwhelm civil resistance and asymmetric warfare is obsolete...

[marym625]

157. Love it.

I absolutely love it. Thank you

[gejohnston]

49. Chances are

the investigation will uncover something more complex than simply killed for laughing. Chances are, the two guys were several time felons in the drug business.

First accounts from the media are almost always wrong.

[Dragonfli]

70. I agree that first results from press are notoriously unreliable,

However I fail to see the point of your post, do you think there is more to the motive than maniacs being angered by being laughed at? The only purpose I can imagine for your post is you feel that the mother and child were attacked for some other reason, is it your belief that there was a different motive? If so what? Do you think they were entangled with the gunmen in some other way? I just don't get it.

The shooters most likely have several priors and were also likely to be involved in various crimes possibly drug related, but what is more complex about the motive unless you feel the victims did something else or were somehow connected in some other way to the gunmen than reported?

I am not trying to fight with you, I just don't get your post and would like some clarification.

[gejohnston]

79. I think there might be

It reminded me of an experience of mine.
When I was stationed in Kansas, my wife and some some of the neighbors and ACORN to get rid of the local drug dealers and crack houses. One day, a an AFOSI agent came by my office and told me about the local gang (I lived in a red area) bomb maker was busted by Wichita PD. One of them was destined for my house and the house of a couple of civilian neighbors.
Growing up in Wyoming, I have had only positive experiences with the "gun culture". "Drug culture", not so much.

[Dragonfli]

123. I get it now, it may be possible that the woman (trying to protect her child)

Was thought to be some kind of "snitch" possibly reporting street corner activity near her home that may have been related to drugs (or some other criminal behavior).

Yes, I see how such a scenario could be plausible. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds as more information becomes available.

Thank you for the clarification of your thoughts.

[marym625]

159. That I believe

There could be something more behind this. Even if just a case of mistaken identity.

[marym625]

51. I'm not ignoring the replies

I'm at a Fight for $15 Chicago event

I will respond later. I didn't expect this much attention

[NYC_SKP]

132. Thanks for turning out and representing, marym625!

..

https://www.facebook.com/Fightfor15

http://fightfor15.org/

And what a tragic event, this shooting over laughing. I'm glad you posted about it and hope nobody gets personal about it.

IMO, guns made it easy for sociopaths to do violent things, and even if there were no guns I would not ever want to be around people like these.

I've always maintained that the best approach is a holistic one that treats the disease (despair) along with the symptoms (gun violence).

I would argue that if the minimum wage was $15 and wealth was more evenly distributed and spending on prevention was increase, we could virtually wipe out these crimes without significant new gun control laws.

Conversely, banning guns altogether would leave behind all of the same misery and despair that lead to societal breakdown and violence.

Take care!

[marym625]

148. Thank you

Your points are well taken. You're probably correct. However, I still wish they didn't exist. My utopia includes no weapons. Especially something so easily used.

I hope you are feeling well!

[sarisataka]

52. It is my opinion

that a person willing to commit murder in broad daylight, in front of a police officer will not be deterred by any restriction or ban of any weapon.

[NaturalHigh]

58. Exactly.

It's a sad fact of life that there are some really bad people out there.

[CBGLuthier]

53. Fuck guns and fuck those who defend the right to own guns

I have lived for four months in a country without guns and not a single fucking person has been murdered since I got here.

America loves guns more than children, apple pie, or human decency. Fuck guns and fuck everyone who thinks that owning guns is a right or a civil liberty. Fuck them all and fuck the heartache that is inevitable.

[gejohnston]

55. what country is that?

[CBGLuthier]

82. Mauritius

[gejohnston]

95. 1.4 million people

and a murder rate of 2.8 per 100K in 2011. Their gun ownership rate is lower than Australia's, but they have twice the murder rate. Come to think of it, there are a number of countries that have high private gun ownership rates but have much lower murder rates. Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Iceland all come to mind.

[NaturalHigh]

56. Well, just FYI...

I believe that owning firearms is a right and a civil liberty for law-abiding citizens. The Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, backs me up on that belief.

[thucythucy]

59. According to THIS Supreme Court

the Constitution also says money is speech, and thus the Koch Brothers get a voice in politics about a billion times more powerful than yours. It also says, according to this Court, that Hobby Lobby has a Constitutional right to deny its employees birth control.

I take it you're on board for those interpretations as well?

[NaturalHigh]

62. My interpretation notwithstanding...

I don't get to decide which decisions are the law of the land. I would imagine, though, that if you took a poll regarding an individual's right to own a firearm, most people would agree that the court made the right decision on that one.

If you want to minimize gun violence, start by stringently enforcing current laws to keep firearms out of the hands of known criminals.

[Puha Ekapi]

407. According to President Obama as well...

...you know, that right wing nut-bag who said he believes gun ownership is an individual right?

[GGJohn]

63. Despite all your rants and raves,

here in America, individual firearm ownership is right, no matter how many times you say fuck guns and fuck everyone who thinks that owning guns is a right or a civil liberty.

[NaturalHigh]

69. The opinions he expressed...

and the way he expressed them are a big part of why the anti-2nd Amendment crowd has so little support. An elitist attitude and hateful, hysterical rhetoric are no way to present a point of view, especially when that point of view is unpopular to begin with.

[CBGLuthier]

84. If not believing in slaughtering people with weapons is elitist

I and the rest of this world that believes so are proud to be elitist.

[NaturalHigh]

89. I'm a gun owner, and I've never slaughtered anyone.

Taking away people's Constitutional rights to self-defense is what's elitist. Fortunately, in spite of the fantasies of gun banners everywhere, it's never going to happen. The 2nd Amendment will remain part of the Constitution, and decent people will continue to own guns to defend themselves.

Anti-gunners would be better off campaigning to see that current laws are enforced to keep guns away from criminals.

[beevul]

354. Therein lies the problem.

"Anti-gunners would be better off campaigning to see that current laws are enforced to keep guns away from criminals."

It seems that would fall outside "anti-gun", and therefore also their area of interest.

They generally wont even acknowledge that gun death numbers are down, because it is contrary to their interests (which is fucked up in a hundred other ways all by itself).

[sarisataka]

91. Watch the news

lots of people get slaughtered with weapons. It's just that the slaughterers usually have a government connection.

[GGJohn]

101. I don't believe in slaughtering people in any way,

but the plain simple fact is that in America, firearm ownership is a fundamental right and all your rants aren't going to change that.

[marym625]

163. I'm almost right there with you

There are some people I believe are misguided about it. But on a whole, I agree. I just don't understand the love for the weapon

[heaven05]

57. people who shot and killed this woman and injured her son

deserve a deep dark hole with only room for him and a lot of rats. Guns, in the wrong hands, both in the LW and RW gun nut clubs, are a bane to a civilized society. Yet, really, whoever said we were civilized, I guess? I couldn't agree with you more....

[marym625]

164. Thank you my friend

You're right about civilized and civility as well as where that guy belongs.

So nice to see you.



Thank you

[guillaumeb]

81. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country
The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.

My response:
What an incredible surprise!! Who could possibly imagine that the country with the highest rate of gun ownership would have the highest rate of people willing to use guns to kill people?

The Second Amendment argument for gun ownership as a personal right that is often made by gun owners is ridiculous.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution actually reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nowhere in the Amendment does it say that "the people" means any individual person. Until the Robert's SCOTUS, it was interpreted as the right of the people as a whole. It was not interpreted as a right of every individual to own a gun. The Robert's SCOTUS completely ignored the principle of "stare decisis" to carry water for the NRA and the arms manufacturers it really represents.

The reason that a militia is referenced is because the Framers did not allow for a standing army. The militia was to be the alternative to a standing army.

[marym625]

165. I completely agree

And thank you for your reply and the link.

[Electric Monk]

92. This thread is a good example of why the GCRA Group still has a reason to exist here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

All DUers are welcome to participate, except gun nuts. Pretty much by definition. If you have a problem with that, you'll get blocked.

[blueridge3210]

96. Why?

Because there is a vigorous debate going on and no one has been blocked? Had this been posted in GCRA two thirds of the posters would have been blocked for violation of the group's TOS. Does it really bother you that much that you cannot get this level of involvement in your "safe haven"?

[Electric Monk]

99. If you don't see the bullying, you just might be part of the problem. nt

[blueridge3210]

102. What bullying?

Or, are you one of those that equates a difference of opinion with "bullying"? That would certainly explain the lack of activity in GCRA.

[GGJohn]

105. You claim we're bullying here?

Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's rich.
Just a quick look at GCRA is enough to prove that the bullies are there and you allow it by the insults and belittlement of gun owning members on this board.
You should really look in a mirror.

[Eleanors38]

124. Heh. Same haven means you can't handle the debate when it doesn't go your way.

[marym625]

167. Well I know I couldn't be further away from the definition of gun nut

But I hope I haven't somehow overstepped in my post or reply.


Absolutely no doubt that this group is needed. Thank you

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

174. As a frequent poster here...

...I can't say I see anything you've said as a problem for the group.
Welcome and stop by more often.

[marym625]

186. Thank you!

I may just do that

[GGJohn]

129. A vigil was set up for that POS Washington, a little further down the road?

A vigil for what? He was a worthless waste of O2, fuck him, he deserved to die, and I'm glad to see that the driver of the car was charged with murder, it might very well be amended to 2 counts of murder, one for Berry, one for Washington.

[marym625]

169. I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about

I know there was a vigil for Ms. Washington but I don't know what else you are talking about

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

179. You may have the names confused

Ms Berry is the woman who was shot. Robert Washington was the shooter who was killed by police.
I believe GGJohn may have seen another story noting that a vigil was held for the shooter as well as Ms Berry.

[marym625]

190. I realized Berry is the woman murdered. I knew there was a vigil.

I wasn't aware that the shooter was killed. I thought he was in custody and had been charged with murder and attempted murder.

I will look at any follow up and see where the confusion is. I can't fathom there was a vigil for a live murderer. But, ya never know

Thanks for the information

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

197. I used to work not far from there in El Segundo

Some areas aren't the best but I never had a problem.

It's always good to be watchful.

[marym625]

205. But who would have thought

That laughing, while driving, would get you killed.

My mother taught in El Segundo for years. She was never afraid.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

252. I stayed in Inglewood

I was only there one week in three and I don't remember being afraid either.

[marym625]

274. It isn't, or at least wasn't

A scary place. .
Thanks again

[GGJohn]

181. Apparently you didn't read your own links.

People held plastic foam cups with candles inside. A bit farther down the street, a small vigil had been set up for Washington.

Washington was the shooter, Ms. Berry was the victim.

[marym625]

195. I did read my links

I am just confused about the shooter. I got the name mixed up with White. My bad. I should have gone back and checked before I responded. I posted early this morning and just remembered wrong.

Yes, that's pretty horrific. This is not a case like Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, etc.

I said somewhere in this thread that I thought he might have had a death wish to do what he did, right in front of the cops. He could not have expected to come out of this alive

[GGJohn]

199. I'm surprised he didn't try to kill the officer first,

he must have had a death wish, or just didn't care anymore whether or not he lived.

[marym625]

207. I wonder if the brothers know

I wonder if they had any idea that he was going to do what he did. We'll never know. They certainly aren't going to say they did. No way.

[GGJohn]

208. The driver was charged with murder while the other passenger was released,

and the driver may very well be charged with the death of Washington because his death resulted in the commission of a crime.

[marym625]

212. yes, but that doesn't mean he knew

It could have been he believed that Washington was just going to harass the woman. I just find it hard to believe that they would pull over in front of a cop so their buddy could shoot someone. The fact that the other was released makes me think neither White knew. That they charged the driver to be able to charge someone.

[GGJohn]

214. It may very well be that the other 2 didn't know what Washington was about to do

and the DA may eventually drop the murder charge against the driver.

[marym625]

219. It's a tragedy. I feel so for the Berry family, especially her son

And if those guys didn't know, they shouldn't be charged.

But yeah, back to the vigil for Washington, besides the fact I don't get it, it sure shows zero respect to the Berry's.

I understand that the police using their weapons so easily is a horrific problem. From what I have read, this is not the case here.

Thank you. And sorry for the confusion earlier.

[MissDeeds]

143. I read this post this morning

and it's haunted me all day. An innocent, lighthearted moment between a mother and her son resulted in unimaginable violence and horror. What have we become as a people and a nation? This is beyond depraved. So very sorry for the mom, her son, and all affected by this senseless act of violence.

[marym625]

171. exactly my thoughts when I saw this.

The outrageosness of it all. The randomness. And right in front of the police.

Things like this are happening more and more often. Just like cops killing people. So much hate. So little respect for life. I don't understand.

And frankly, though there is absolutely no connection, the disrespect shown to President Obama and his administration with the letter to Iran, to the UN and the threat of a law to undermine negotiations with multiple nations, is doing nothing but teaching kids, you need not respect anyone or anything. Hardly the Christian bullshit they're using as an excuse to discriminate against women, people of color, LGBT and whatever religion du jour.

[blkmusclmachine]

162. The NRA beat our elected Democrats ass every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. And, it wasn't

even close.

That's what you get with a deeply COMPROMISED Party.

Yay, us...

[marym625]

172. I hate to agree with you

But you're right. And part of the reason the NRA beat us is we showed no backbone when fighting them.

Thank you

[WillyT]

168. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[marym625]

173. Thank you, my friend!

[LiberalLovinLug]

188. The gun nuts are out in force I see.

With the same tired arguments against stricter gun control laws that make no sense.

1. But but but its our second amendment rights!

Written in the context of forming well-regulated militias for some emergency use against a corrupt government. Doesn't address the technological advancements in firepower. Also this amendment does not say anything against background checks and registration.

2. But but but... the criminals will always be able to get a gun. All you are doing is persecuting responsible gun owners

Criminals will always be able to find a gun if they really want one...even in Sweden or Canada. The point is that there are less of them floating around. Less are manufactured because of restrictions and that people don't feel threatened as much. Less of them to steal in general because they're harder to obtain and none of them even there in a B&E. Instead the US is moving towards everyone carrying a gun rather than nobody. Which do you think is safer?

3. But but but...It will decrease gun deaths because I'll be able to defend myself. How about the high number of accidental shootings withing the home?

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.




I am a Canadian. It is scary to me watching news from the US. I do not understand the mentality that arming everyone is better than restrictions on such a deadly weapon so that only the cops and a few hardened criminals can get them. I can walk around my neighbourhood in a major city and know that probably 100% of the people around me are not carrying a gun, nor would they ever want to.

[marym625]

210. +1000

Exactly. Perfect. Thank you

Wouldn't it be nice to do what you do, walk around knowing that no one has a gun. I live in Chicago. I assume pretty much everyone has one

[gejohnston]

227. adjust for population

and list each of those countries. chances are, there total population is nowhere near the US. The data is very out dated and includes suicides. What I find amusing are some of the countries that have lower gun deaths have higher murder rates than we do. Mexico, Estonia, and Brazil? Really?

[LiberalLovinLug]

322. Of course its per capita

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison

and includes suicides? Gee do you think someone who is depressed and kind of wants to end it and has easy access to to a gun might make the suicide rate go up? Just think of all those people who may have only had plan B to work with. maybe taking an overdose. Many times people can recover from those.




Yes that's per 100,000 of the population. Do you really not see that maybe, just maybe, the other western democracies are onto something with better gun controls?

[gejohnston]

349. notice it says specifically homicide with guns

not homicide as a whole. The graph I doubted was not per capita. It listed countries that had higher murder rates as being "safer" or at least trying to imply it.

With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison

except when it comes to murder rates, we are in the middle of the pack. These are cherry picked countries.

and includes suicides? Gee do you think someone who is depressed and kind of wants to end it and has easy access to to a gun might make the suicide rate go up? Just think of all those people who may have only had plan B to work with. maybe taking an overdose. Many times people can recover from those.

No. Overdoses are a cry for help. Hanging is actually the most common means in Europe. Some of the above countries have higher suicide rates. "You think" isn't a valid argument.

In Japan, murder/suicides and cold cases are written off as suicides. They are also not that uncommon. For example, dad flips out and kills the family (there it is usually mom, but you get the picture) before offing himself. All would be counted as suicides.

Yes that's per 100,000 of the population. Do you really not see that maybe, just maybe, the other western democracies are onto something with better gun controls?

If it worked for those few, how come it hasn't worked for Brazil, Mexico, Russia, or half of the world for that matter? Australia and Japan always had strict gun control laws. The rest had about the same low rates before they had any gun laws at all even when we did. As for Canada, their murder rate (in Canada, their gun murder rate is one third of the murder rate.) goes up and down with ours, but still being about 1/3 ours. This was even true before 1977 when theirs on balance was as liberal as ours. I say on balance, because we are stricter in some areas in some areas and they in others. For example, handguns required licensing but machine guns were not that much different than hunting rifles. Today, what we call a sawed off shotgun is unrestricted up there, meaning it is regulated less than a pistol, and 12 year olds can possess it and walk in to Canada Tire and buy ammo for it as long as the kid has passed a basic safety course and has a minors permit.

In Japan, there is no right to a fair trial and impartial triers of fact, no right to council, forced confessions are admissible, no 4A either.

Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. The "gun death" graph was not adjusted for population, nor did it show murders by other means and lumped in suicides. Brazil, Mexico, and Estonia have higher murder rates than we do.

[ileus]

191. I hate people that abuse guns.

[marym625]

263. that

And who use guns to abuse.

Thank you for your reply

[ybbor]

193. I hate them, too

I've never fired one nor do I ever want to fire one. I have never felt a need to own one ever. I am not so paranoid to believe that they are necessary for my protection.

I do respect hunters and have helped many to get an animal out of the woods and have helped to get their harvest to the processors. I have also enjoy much of their spoils, and I do enjoy it, especially elk! But I have never wanted to do the killing myself. And I do feel somewhat bad for that, but appreciate that I am fortunate that others will do that work for me, either as a hunter or a rancher.

But I do not feel that hand guns or assault weapons are needed by anyone.

I'll never change anyone's mind, and no one will ever change mine, but inside I know I'm right.

[GGJohn]

213. I'll never change anyone's mind, and no one will ever change mine, but inside I know I'm right.

And inside I know I'm right about my right to keep and bear arms, so there ya go.

[ybbor]

215. Like I said, we will never agree

I can only hope someday we can amend the constitution, but I won't hold my breath.

Be safe with your weapons.

[GGJohn]

230. The only things I kill these days are predators attempting to get to our livestock

and wild game to eat, other than that, I hope to never have to take a human life again.

[ybbor]

239. I would be more than willing to offer help in getting your harvest to the freezer

I am assuming you are a veteran, and also hope you never have to take another human life.

Be safe, and sorry about my above comment. I am just as passionate as you are on you feelings about the subject.

I hope you give the video a watch, he's pretty funny, and makes some good points.

[GGJohn]

254. No problem and no need to be sorry, the firearms issue is very

contentious and I sometimes get pretty passionate, (read snarky) also.

Yes, I'm a veteran, 40+years in the Army as a helicopter pilot and squadron commander.

I'll watch the video, I've heard he's a pretty funny guy and I'm always willing to listen to reason.
Take care my friend.

[ybbor]

217. I think Jim Jefferies explains my feelings perfectly

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/26/australian-comedian-jim-jefferies-gun-control-video/

[marym625]

265. exactly how I feel

They're made for killing human beings and nothing else. I don't have a gun and I never will. I have had a gun pointed at me and I still believe wholeheartedly that owning one is wrong.

No one is going to change their mind because of me and I will never change mine. I completely agree with you

[GGJohn]

272. Guns are not made for killing human beings and nothing else.

A gun is designed to propel a piece of lead out of a hollow tube and just for the record, my firearms have never been used to kill another human being, and, (knocks on wood) will never be used for that purpose.
However, that said, my firearms have been used to dispatch predators that have attempted to abscond with our livestock, they've been used to supply our table with fresh meat, and they've been used to put holes in paper targets.

[marym625]

276. I'm sorry put the purpose of the propelling

Of the bullet is to kill. The hand guns were meant to kill people. As are the assault rifles. They are machines of death.

I am not talking about rifles made for hunting.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, and you sharing your experience, but that was the purpose of the weapon. We're not talking about a slingshot

[GGJohn]

281. My AR-15 is used to dispatch the predators, I have an AR-10 in .308 caliber for hunting,

along with my more traditional bolt action hunting rifles, I have hunted feral hogs with a handgun, a .454 Casull revolver.



Hunted small game birds with a .22 revolver.
The point I'm making is that firearms, handguns and so called assault weapons have other purposes other than killing humans.

[marym625]

287. You may use them for purposes other than killing

And others may as well. But they were invented as weapons of war with the intent to kill other human beings.

Excluding hunting, I am sure that there are other ways of accomplishing your goals that don't include guns.

[GGJohn]

290. Well, I guess I could take care of the predators with a bow, and I could shoot arrows at

paper targets, but it's just not the same, and I do enjoy shooting at targets to relax me, I know it sounds kind of strange, but after a hard day on our farm, an occasional bout with the firearms shooting at targets does relax me.

[marym625]

300. no. It doesn't sound strange

I used to love to skeet shoot. (Not sure I spelled that right) It was fun. Especially when I beat my dad and my brother. But I truly cannot stand those things now. Guns.

I am not saying you should not use what you have to get rid of predators. As I stated in the OP and a few times in this thread, I am not stupid enough or naive enough to think guns will ever disappear. But that doesn't mean I don't wish it.

[GGJohn]

302. Yes, you did spell it right,

never did any skeet shooting, but have had friends that did and they swear by it.
Fair enough with your second sentence and I respect your position, even if I disagree with it.
Again, thanks for the civil, even tempered conversation, it's quite refreshing.

[marym625]

304. and right back at you

I wish everyone would realize we can disagree in one area and still fight for the same thing in others

[democrank]

200. This is such a horrible story.

I feel so badly for that 12-year old boy and I hope someone is there to comfort him.

~Rest in peace, Denise Berry~



These gun debates are stressful. I grew up in a house with plenty of rifles mixed with plenty of alcohol and violence. I dislike guns and don`t want to be around them. But, I believe in the right to bear arms. What troubles me is how violent a nation we are. The number of gun deaths in our country compared to other industrialized nations is both astonishing and sickening. Those statistics say a lot about us and it`s not a pretty picture.

[gejohnston]

233. look on the bright side

there are other industrialized nations that are much worse when it comes to murder rates. Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa comes to mind. Also, 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides, which make up for half of all suicides. Firearms are used in 57 percent of our murders. If we removed the ten worst cities, our murder rate would be closer to Germany's.
I don't think we are that violent of a nation. There are pockets that are very violent, but not for the most part. In terms of general violence, we are no where near as bad as the UK.

[marym625]

266. Yes, that poor child. and he feels guilt for his mother's death.

Because he made her laugh. So tragic.

We different on what the amendment was meant to include. But there is no doubt we are a crazy violent nation. Something we sorely need to address.

Thank you for your thoughts

[Oakenshield]

248. Just another day in the US of A.

Expecting sorrow? All out of that stuff. If Sandy Hook couldn't bring Americans to their senses, nothing will.

[gejohnston]

251. there is a reason for that

appeals to emotion and dishonesty doesn't work with an educated electorate.

[Oakenshield]

258. America doesn't have a educated electorate.

Bush had two terms, there's nothing educated about that. Elect ten Democrats to the oval office in a row, and you still won't erase such brazen stupidity.

[gejohnston]

262. Bush lost the popular vote

and research electronic voting machines and 2004 elections. IIRC, it was Stalin who said it isn't who votes, but who counts the votes.

[Oakenshield]

264. The race should never have been so close to begin with.

Had there been enough "educated" Americans, the Supreme Court never would have gotten the chance to decide the election in the first place.

[marym625]

270. Yeah, statistics mean shit.

There is nothing dishonest about emotion. There is nothing dishonest about the statistics.

Nothing happened because of people like you who use bullshit statistics, who think that 20 children being murdered means nothing, because of uneducated people who can't read CDC numbers correctly, or is intentionally misquoting them and because of the money from the gun lobby.

Now, please get off my post. This is a group for gun reform.

[GGJohn]

273. No, this isn't the group for gun reform, you're mistaking this group for the other group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[marym625]

277. Thank you. so I mistook this group for that group

I am still sick of his using bullshit arguments.

But I appreciate the clarification

[gejohnston]

279. come back with logical and valid arguments

you know, based on facts, reason, and evidence and free of logical fallacies and bullshit and I'll be open for more dialogue.

[marym625]

296. I am going to address just one of your incorrect comments

Up thread you state that in gun deaths like in the OP, according to the CDC that's 16 per year.

Things like the OP would have happened, maybe in a different way. According to the CDC, you are talking about 62 such deaths per year. 

These are a paste from another post in which I replied to someone else that used incorrect or deliberately twisted CDC statistics:

But total deaths from firearms in 2013 is 66,805

That's

Accidental discharge non- transport 505
Intentional self inflicted. 21,175
Assault (homicide) 11,208
Undetermined intent 281
Injury by firearm that caused
Other problems that ended in death 33,636

That's 66,805. That's OK with you?

In the age groups 10 to 54, suicide is in the top 5, ages 55 to 64 it's in the top 10








I will be happy to put up the numbers for accidental deaths if you like.

Skew the statistics anyway you like. To try to make it sound like the numbers are negligible or insignificant so you are justified in having no gun laws, no permits, etc is ridiculous. Someone can't help dying from cancer. But each and every single one of the deaths from guns was completely preventable.

Let's take a look at the cause of death in homicides with firearms by age group. We'll just look at the age groups where homicide is in the top 5 causes of death. That's ages 1 to 34.











Main page to pull this from


http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Those are directly from the CDC. 11,208 is a far cry from 62.


You have repeatedly stated that educated people wouldn't vote for gun control. You use ridiculous comparison to drugs (so many things wrong with that I wouldn't even know where to begin) You continually say "emotions" like there should not be emotions involved in senseless death. You use one example of a horrendous act in the UK and say that the numbers don't matter. Your arguments are not worth addressing and I have no desire, whatsoever, to continue this conversation with you.

I won't reply to you on this thread again.

[gejohnston]

311. what you specifically said

Yes, I blame guns. Because without them, things like what happened in the OP and things like a child grabbing a gun and accidentally killing another child, couldn't happen

Go to the CDC website and see how they define children. By adding adults, suicides, and crimes, you are padding and moving the goal posts.

You have repeatedly stated that educated people wouldn't vote for gun control.

No, I didn't say that. I said be swayed by logical fallacies, emotionalsim, and fake statistics. If you admitting that that is all gun control advocates have, well we agree.

You use ridiculous comparison to drugs (so many things wrong with that I wouldn't even know where to begin) You continually say "emotions" like there should not be emotions involved in senseless death.

IIRC, this is an example of appeal to ridicule. I said public policy should not be based on emotion. Notice you don't explain why it would be ridiculous. Perhaps you can start a "violence free" pot certification, kind of like for diamonds.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2012/03/drug-war-related-homicides-us-average-least-1100-year

You use one example of a horrendous act in the UK and say that the numbers don't matter.

No, you said with strict gun laws, what happened in the OP couldn't have happened. I proved you wrong. Actually, all I had do is look at South Africa's and Brazil's murder rates.

Your arguments are not worth addressing and I have no desire, whatsoever, to continue this conversation with you.

whatever, thanks for the dialogue anyway.

[GGJohn]

282. No problem and I hope you continue to post here,

I do enjoy reading your posts and you seem to be quite civil with those you disagree with.
Please stay and let's have a good debate, who knows, we both might learn something new.

[marym625]

283. Thank you very much

I really appreciate that.
.

[marym625]

284. I also appreciate your replies

And the debate. It's not always easy to find anymore

[gejohnston]

278. money from the gun lobby

which is chump change compared to the millions spent by racist and sexist authoritarian Bloomberg and his former Monsanto flack. No, it is your side that lied about the statistics and didn't bother to read the CDC or FBI/UCR. Please show me an example of "uneducated people who can't read CDC numbers correctly". No, the likes of Bloomberg makes shit up or pads statistics.

Now, please get off my post. This is a group for gun reform.

Take that up with krispos42, the group host.

[marym625]

268. I agree with that

And I blame weak politicians for nothing happening then.

But we have to keep trying.

Thank you

[deathrind]

269. The 2nd Amendment...

...was a very good idea at the time it was written.

[marym625]

271. Probably was

And more than likely is being misinterpreted.

Thank you

[deathrind]

289. I agree. DC v. Heller proved that.

[marym625]

298. yep

That was a Roberts court misinterpretation to the beyond in my opinion. thanks for bringing that one up

[GGJohn]

306. I'm not sure if you're aware of this,

but all 9 justices agreed that the 2A was an individual right to firearm ownership not connected to militia membership, the dissent was on the level of restriction allowed.

[marym625]

308. Have to disagree with that

The vote was 5-4 and one of the main points of the dissent was that if the forefathers meant it to mean individuals, they would have said that.

I will try to grab it

[marym625]

309. I'm too tired to find the text right now

So I am going to cheat. From Wikipedia

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania andVermont.[51]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended

I will find the actual text tomorrow

[beevul]

355. Thats wiki for you.

"that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended"

That's refuted by the mechanics of the bill of rights itself.

Lets turn to the preamble to the bill of rights, to see the intended purpose of the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

A SC justice puts a finer point on what that means:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

Amendment 2 wasn't created to "authorize" anything. It was created to restrict government from infringing on a right that according to the text itself, belongs to the people.

It contains no exception to this restriction where individuals are concerned.

The argument that "they would have specifically said so if they meant individuals", is the dying breath of the "collective rights" interpretation. Such an interpretation was not in line with the function of the bill of rights, and it says as much right in the document itself.

[marym625]

397. Four Supreme Court Justices disagree

The statement made by GGJohn was that all 9 Justices agreed that the 2A was an individual right to firearm ownership not connected to militia membership, the dissent was on the level of restriction allowed.

Even though I used Wikipedia, which I stated was done only because I was exhausted, doesn't change the fact that my answer was correct. In the dissent the Justices stated:

Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.

I addressed what was stated to me.

Text of the dissent

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[beevul]

404. The highly touted...dissent.

I get what you're saying.


Incidentally, we went over the dissent here when the Heller decision was handed down. It has nuggets for both sides to try to hang their hat on, but it goes a bit off the rails early on. It was just as disconnected from reality then, as it is now.

For example, the dissent says:

"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms."

That is a misleading statement, which draws a conclusion that ignores and is indeed contrary to the preamble to the bill of rights itself.

The dissent also seems to ignore the 30 plus state constitutions which protect the rights of the individual.

The end of the dissent says:

" The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framersmadea choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."


The preamble to the bill of rights makes explicitly clear, that the "choice to limit the tools available to elected officials" on a whole host of issues/fronts was exactly what the framers had in mind, and intended.

It contains and proclaims that exact sentiment, which the dissent ignores entirely.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

385. This point is rather troublesome

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

From the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Distinguishing powers from rights, the RKBA is a right and rights are not granted, bestowed or earned. The government, according to the Declaration of Independence, derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Rights, OTOH, are innate attributes of humans. The fact the most everyone everywhere acknowledges a right to life makes that an indisputable fact. It is quite easy to infer from the right to life, the right to self-defense. The RKBA is simply the right to use a tool to protect and provide for one's life and the life of his/her family.

In his dissent in Heller, Justice Stevens applied from Marbury v. Madison that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The argument expressed from this point names as the sole purpose for the 2A, the protection of a Militia purposed RKBA only. That, while the use of a gun for self-defense purposes would be certainly be legal, the 2A does not innately protect possession for that purpose.

The Heller case was about: "We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment."

In my view, there were several known, established, accepted and respected behaviors common among the citizens of the young nation. They were:
- the ownership of long guns for the purpose of hunting
- the carry of smaller firearms such as pistols for personal protection
- the use of guns in general for practice
- the use of a gun during service as a law enforcement officer
and, of course...
- possession for use relating to militia service.

I argue that the 2A was written with the militia clause to include in its protection, the specific possession of militia appropriate weapons. That if, weapons not solely purposed for the first four uses, above, would be restricted from the people, the militia would be impaired. After all a militia armed with Olympic target pistols of .22 caliber or 18th century muskets is hardly well matched with another armed with even 19th century lever action rifles.

Through history, certain upper classes have prohibited the possession of state of the art arms to those outside their own group. Take for example Japan's Samuri who forbid general ownership of the katana. Laws that would burden the people in same manner as the British attempted to burden the colonies concerning firearms were to be excluded from possibility. The 3A was in line with that same end. It was a standard procedure among the British to house their soldiers in the homes of colonists and burden the quartering family with their feeding and sheltering.

In reading Federalist #46 one can determine that Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, intended to protect a militia of just about every free white adult male in the country. That the existence of arms in the hands of everyone rather than a select few (maybe 1% of the population) was entirely proper.

There have always been 1%ers that sought to be "above" the rest of us. It is that same special interest end that the 2A was enacted to protect against.

In the US we've enacted and, later, corrected laws that forbid certain types of folks from owning firearms. There were laws against selling or giving guns to Black folks and Native Americans, because it was said 'they aren't really people'.

I further contest inferring that the RKBA has no individual protection based upon the founders not expressing that aspect conflicts with the nature of the Bill of Rights. A fundamental principle of interpretation is...

In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject&quot
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.

The application of this principle is to apply the 2A in the way as the others in the Bill of Rights are applied. The 1A covers newspapers with hundreds of employees as well as an individual blogger.

The 2A mainly expresses and protects a right, a common right of everyone, not an institution, not the militia.

Have a nice day.

[marym625]

398. The dissent disagrees with you

In that, at the time, certain States did, in fact, create laws that specifically laid out uses allowed other than for a well regulated militia.

While the arguments here are compelling, and the fact that the DC v Heller decision went further than any other decision regarding the use of firearms by individuals, this question was specifically about what all 9 Justices agreed upon.

I posted in this group because I didn't want the OP locked in GD. I also thought this group was one that allowed discussion without adversarial replies about gun control. I was mistaken. And though I am not trying to back away from discussion, which is obvious by my multiple replies, it wasn't the intent of my OP to have such discussion.

I don't care what the 2A means when it comes to my personal opinion on guns. Not in the actual law, of course. Just my personal opinion. And I hate guns. I just hate them. As I stated in the OP and repeatedly throughout the thread, I am not stupid or naive enough to think that the guns are going to suddenly disappear. But that doesn't mean I don't wish they would.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

399. Bravo

Your participation has enabled a most popular discussion here.

There both opinions and their opponents and you've shown both that you have an opinion and, by your responses, that you respect those that differ with you.

Many of us that favor the RKBA also see a hope that working with gun-control proponents will lead to meaningful change. I'm talking about change that will lessen crime while respecting rights.

Please don't mistake any pro-RKBA enthusiasm as a lack of respect for you or your right to voice an opinion.

I can't imagine anyone perceiving you to be stupid. You write very well, you don't resort to juvenile attacks and obstinately stick to your opinion. I kind of admire that.

[marym625]

400. wow. Thank you

I really appreciate that!

[GGJohn]

275. It still is. eom.

[840high]

285. My condolences to her family, friends and

especially her children.

[marym625]

297. I feel so much for that young boy

I am considering starting a go fund me for her kids. I am going to try to find out more about the finances and see if they need it. If so, I am going to try to get a 501 (c) to sponsor a go fund me for her kids

Thank you for your reply

[840high]

301. Great idea. Find out if the

Dad will get custody.

[marym625]

303. ok.

I will have to do this in the morning. Too tired right now.

Just out of curiosity, did you read something about the dad that would indicate he shouldn't or something? Or are you just curious?

[840high]

313. Just curious - don't even

know if he's around. Hoping the children have some relative to be with.

[marym625]

366. I have not been able to get too much information

But it looks like the kids are with an aunt. She was a bus driver. Same job for 15 years.

I doubt that any benefit and/or 401k/pension to the kids will be sufficient. Not for 3 kids.

Still trying to get better information

[840high]

368. Thank you. She

probably will need help.

[marym625]

369. I'm assuming so.

And next I hhave to figure out what charity to ask to help so it's tax deductible to contribute and not taxed like it would be otherwise

[GGJohn]

307. If you do, post the link and I'll donate to the fund.

And TY in advance if you do so.

[marym625]

310. I will. And thank you. n/t

[greatlaurel]

316. Good post, marym625

Well said.

Thank you.

for another victim of gun violence. I hope the boy gets all the help he needs to understand it was not his fault.

[marym625]

335. Thank you

I do as well. What a horror to have to live with.

[IronLionZion]

330. WTF?

The people I know who keep their feet out the window are hippies who probably wouldn't shoot anyone.

I hate hate. Why was it offensive to laugh at feet hanging out a window?

[blueridge3210]

339. Because sociopaths don't think like "normal" people.

To quote Alfred in "The Dark Knight"; some people just want to see the world burn. Trying to make sense of their motivation is pointless; like trying to explain a rainbow to an earthworm.

[marym625]

340. The guy had to have a death wish and serious mental problems.

You don't just shoot someone, in front of a cop, because they laughed. Truly twisted stuff.

[pablo_marmol]

381. I really don't give a damn about your hate.

Just like I don't give a damn about the gay-haters on the right.

[marym625]

383. Nice of you to let me know

There's a huge difference between the two things. I hate a thing. They hate people.

[pablo_marmol]

389. And nice of you to let us know about your irrational hatred of an inanimate object.

Do you still hate the gun when it is used by a woman to prevent a rape, or by seniors to defend themselves against younger attackers? Frequently these defensive gun uses don't even involve firing a shot. The hypocrisy sickens.

Oh, right. There's no such thing as defensive gun use.

[marym625]

393. Yes, I still hate guns.

You have some issues. I hope you can work them out away from DU. See, I posted something you could have easily ignored. You replied directly to me. Big difference in the dissemination of information.

But, if it makes you feel good to try to make me feel bad, please, let loose. Maybe it'll keep you from doing it to someone who might care for a few minutes.

[pablo_marmol]

395. Wasn't trying to make you feel bad. Nice red herring, though.

I simply confront nonsense when it's trotted out in front of me, and I choose not to give nonsense a pass by ignoring it. My right. I noticed you had no cogent response to my questions regarding defensive gun use. Typical.

Fascinating that a person who openly hates inanimate objects suggests that someone else has "issues". You'll forgive me if I consider the source and dismiss it.

Edited to add: "I still hate guns" resembles a young child stomping their feet. Care to explain why you see no difference between criminal offensive use of guns and a victim's defensive use of a gun?

Won't be holding my breath for a reasoned response.

[marym625]

396. Because you gave me nothing to respond to.

Defense? You want to show statistics on gun use for defense? Then I will give you the statistics on how often it has backfired. How often it has done nothing. More importantly, how many times guns kept for defense have been used in the home on a family member or even on the owner by him/herself.

No, nice try. You were hoping I would either be incensed or upset. Sorry, not buying into your bull.

I posted about a woman murdered in cold blood and a child shot for no reason. The fact I hate guns is an aside. You, on the other hand, posted about me and some imaginary useful purpose for guns. I have already posted statistics on this thread. But I will be happy to do so again. But I won't do it for you.

Red herring. That's funny.

Have a good night. Try harder tomorrow.

[pablo_marmol]

408. "No, nice try. You were hoping I would either be incensed or upset."

You can lie all you want about the motives for my statements.......nobody is buying your malarkey, and you just discredit yourself with these presumptuous and dishonest accusations.

Then I will give you the statistics on how often it has backfired. How often it has done nothing.

No you won't.....because you can't! You're too uninformed on the gun violence issue to be aware that such statistics don't even exist!

More importantly, how many times guns kept for defense have been used in the home on a family member or even on the owner by him/herself.

Again -- you're too uninformed to be aware of how David Hemenway -- the author of these bogus "studies" was eviscerated by numerous honest scholars after he trotted out this tripe.

Because you gave me nothing to respond to.

Well that's easily remedied. How about responding to award-winning liberal criminologist Gary Kleck? What can you say about a group of people who when told that MULTIPLE liberal criminologists don't sign off on the party positions of gun restriction won't even give these scholars a listen? Like four-year-olds they stomp their feet, put their fingers in their ears and just scream louder.

Try harder tomorrow.

Thanks but no thanks. There's no reasoning with someone as full of blind hate and lack of knowledge as yourself.

[stone space]

390. Are you comparing human beings with deadly weapons?

Gays are not deadly weapons, and your comparison is homophobic in the extreme.



Gays are human beings!

[hack89]

391. So he says he despises people that hate gays and that makes him homophobic? Really. ne

[sarisataka]

392. But if the hypothetical

Gay human being had verified threats to their life and gone through all requirements to obtain a permit to carry you would still deny them that protection to take your class.

in such a case therefore, does not hatred of the inanimate object result in a devaluation of that human life.

[DonP]

394. You might want to take some time off and audit a class on reading comprehension.

You were in such a hurry to try and pick a fight, you responded in a totally bassackward way.

Read it again, ... slowly and stop worrying about what fight you want to pick.

We'll wait for your apology.

[samsingh]

401. i hate how guns are used. i hate that people who don't deserve them can get them so easily

[marym625]

402. completely agree.

[blueridge3210]

403. I dislike how alcohol is misused.

I am deeply disturbed at the number of crimes that are committed by people who are under the influence of alcohol and how easily they obtain alcohol I am deeply disturbed by the carnage on the roadways caused by those that operate motor vehicles under the influence. I do not blame those who drink responsibly or operate motor vehicles responsibly for the actions of criminals. Too many on the pro gun control side want to state or imply that all criminal activity or negligent activity involving firearms is to be laid at the feet of those people who legally own firearms and handle them responsibly.

[samsingh]

405. that's why we have drinking and driving laws, underage laws, licencing bodies, lots of taxes,

and police can subject you too lots of tests.

[blueridge3210]

406. That's why we have laws regarding posssession and carrying of firearms.

18 to purchase a long gun, 21 to purchase a handgun. No felony convictions or convictions for domestic violence. Cannot be adjudicated as mentally unsound. Must, generally, have some form of permit to carry in public. Private property owners are able to bar weapons from their premises. Cannot purchase ammunition at the same time you purchase a weapon. Lots of taxes on firearms and ammunition; hunting permits to support wildlife conservation.